The Blasphemy Challenge

Originally Posted by wolf

They are not.

It is one thing to advocate for the free exercise of religion. This, I think, is a fine thing, and one of the founding principles of this country, a basic right. You can choose your means of approach to faith and worship, or make the choice not to follow a faith-path, without a government mandate to do so. That's freedom of religion. That's IT. I, having the freedom of religion, will make choices different from yours.

I do not presume, however, to restrict your, or anyone else's public expression of your religion. I am not in any way harmed by the posting of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, nor am I offended by a nativity in the public square. One person wears a cross, another a pentacle, yet another a crescent. So what?

The separation of church and state is fundamental to this nation, it is a key reason for the founding of it and why we left Europe. Someone being tried who is not a Christian will feel quite oppressed staring at the ten commandments while being tried as it states, clearly, that it is a Christian court that they are in. Not acceptable in this nation and could not be farther from the truth.

I have not made my video yet, my health has been bad for the last few days. As soon as I am able, I will, DVD or not, Wolf.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Someone being tried who is not a Christian will feel quite oppressed staring at the ten commandments while being tried as it states, clearly, that it is a Christian court that they are in.

I disagree. Posting the Magna Carta wouldn't make it a British Court, posting the Ten Commandments does not make it a Christian Court. Both are documents showing the evolution of law, not laws under which the court functions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It might be an indication they will follow established rules that have been accepted legal system and not making up shit as they go along, to suit their personal prejudices.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The ten commandments have nothing to do with the US judicial system.

[KGZotU]

It seems to me like those videos say a lot.

This Blasphemy Challenge is not a community building or support exercise in particular. It appears to me to be a confrontational display of arrogance and superiority.

Why not apply this effort to a national campaign of tolerance and understanding? I think that many atheists would rather remain a persecuted and misunderstood minority.

My 2c.

--Joe

[piercehawkeye45]

And by making every Christian value into law and expecting everyone to abide to you is not a display of arrogance and superiority?

Nawwww... and disowning your kids or telling them they are going to burn in hell/not be a good person if they don't BELIEVE isn't either.
Let's not be SILLY!

[Beestie]

The ten commandments (or 15 if you believe Mel Brooks) are not Christian. They pre-date Jesus by a considerable span of time and are referenced in varying degrees by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike and so could not possibly offend any member of the big three religions.

I could argue that they couldn't offend any member of any non-big-three religion since the god speaking the commandments would simply be the god they worship.

I could also argue that they couldn't offend a member of a multithiestic religion since even Christianity has multiple versions of its god. And Christianity has obviously conjured up some tortured theological workaround to accommodate the "worship" of the virgin Mary thereby setting a precedent for a multi-deity bonanza.

I could further argue that the commandments couldn't even offend an atheist since only the first commandment deals with god himself. Since atheists do not believe in god they are not technically violating the first edict (the first commandment is actually a statement and two commandments) since they don't worship or idolize something in place of god. In addition, there is no law on the books referencing the first commandment nor does the first commandment instruct anyone, atheists or otherwise, to do anything they aren't already doing (either worshiping the god they think wrote the commandments or not worshiping some other god or idol in its place). So everyone is safe so far.

The second commandment requires upholding the Sabbath. Since no one really knows what the hell that means, I think its safe to say that no one should be intimidated or offended by that edict. Anyway, courthouses are closed on Sunday so the odds that anyone reading it at the courthouse might have occasion to wonder if the mere act of reading it violates it are zero. Offended party count: zero.

The third commandment (not using the Lord's name in vein), like the first and second is personal and whether or not one has violated it is difficult to determine and is well outside the court's jurisdiction. Atheists are incapable of violating the third commandment since the mere act of denouncing god implicitly requires them to acknowledge he exists. So any atheist who denounces god has inadvertently denounced his own atheism and is now a defacto non-atheist. Which faith he now belongs to is a matter of some debate. True atheists understand this and have no problem with commandment three.

Commandment 4, honor your parents, is just plain good advice. Anyone want to step up and claim it offends them? I didn't think so.

Commandments 5-8 prohibit murder, theft, perjury and adultery. Three of those are codified into law and one is a basis for civil action. So there is good reason to have those posted. Unless, of course, someone wants to make the argument that having laws that parallel the commandments, in fact, violates the mandatory separation of church and state and therefore, constitutes prima fascia grounds to have those laws stricken from the books. Anyone want to sign up for that? Anyone? Bueller?

The last two commandments prohibit envy. Anyone offended by that is probably themselves offensive.

I'll conclude by saying that I'm not trying to be condescending or arrogant or anything other than reasoned. I just fail to see what the BFP (big freaking problem) is with posting the commandments in a courthouse and scoff at the idea that they violate either someone's freedom of religion or someone's sense of entitlement to freedom from religion.

And for those who are just dead set against it, logic be damned, I'll leave you with this thought: if the judge even references them you can get the case against you dismissed so, ironically, they might even come to your defense someday. Imagine that: the ten commandments as a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. Now that is offensive.

From what book are the courts getting these commandments, the exact wording, specifically?

Regardless of that, separation of church and state means any church.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

From what book are the courts getting these commandments, the exact wording, specifically?

Regardless of that, separation of church and state means any church.

Separation of church and state. Not separation of religion and state. The whole idea of this was a rebellion against the Church of England. I think its a bit of a stretch to allege that a copy of the non-church specific ten commandments on public property is as egregious as a state-sponsored church. Unless you are making the "slippery slope" argument in which case I'll point out that two tablets in the courthouse lobby over a 250 year period isn't exactly a greased pig on a waterslide.

Separation of church and state. Not separation of religion and state

[Beestie]

Nothing further, your honor.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Beestie

I could argue that they couldn't offend any member of any non-big-three religion since the god speaking the commandments would simply be the god they worship.

No it wouldn't. The Ten Commandments are explicitly associated with Jehovah. And commandments one, two, and three are explicitly religious, and Abrahamaic, in nature, whether or not you know "what the hell that means."

And for those who are just dead set against it, logic be damned,

You certainly did damn up some logic.

[KGZotU]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

And by making every Christian value into law and expecting everyone to abide to you is not a display of arrogance and superiority?

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Nawwww... and disowning your kids or telling them they are going to burn in hell/not be a good person if they don't BELIEVE isn't either.
Let's not be SILLY!

In fact, I'm not being silly.

You would imply with your posts that I said Christians do not display arrogance or superiority, when it is clear that I said nothing of the sort. My focus was clearly on the actions, options, and opportunities of atheists.

My point is this. rkzenrage, you defended this Project Blasphemy as a necessary community building and support exercise. However, the means are directly confrontational and offensive.

My question was, why not support a community building exercise that involves education of the public? Use the effort to cast atheists as thoughtful, considerate, and socially responsible equals instead of provocative ne'er-do-wells who give away prizes for blaspheming that which the majority hold so dear.

I suggest that many atheists do not wish to be treated as equal, because such treatment would remove their license to feel superior over others.

PS: I'm not going to defend words that someone else put in my mouth.

--Joe

There is nothing confrontational by just stating your belief or lack thereof.
Theists choose to take it personally, though it is not about them, at all. We care not about that, don't acknowledge it, and have no reason to.
I put no words in your mouth.