<p>Just a guess: S. Colbert?</p>
<p>You bet it is.</p>
<p>“Can you think of any better building to put the Ten Commandments in than in a public building?” </p>
<p>How does Colbert keep a straight face?</p>
<p>I am laughing so hard that my insides are in pain.</p>
<p>I also love how Westmoreland compares himself with a Dem: “There’s one who is a do-nothinger.” How’s that for racing to the bottom?</p>
<p>I actually think he was joking at the beginning (do-nothinger, etc.). But near the end, during the discussion of his proposal to display the Ten Commandments in the House and the Senate, he was clearly dead serious. I don’t really care whether he knows the Ten Commandments (although the voters in his district undoubtedly do!), but I wish Colbert had asked him about the Bill of Rights.</p>
<p>I don’t think so. These bible thumpers seem keen on protecting their archaic little book instead of the one that matters.</p>
<p>NYMom:</p>
<p>Do you think so? Westmoreland seemed befufuddled from beginning to end.
Well, that was a peach of an interview. A Georgia peach.</p>
<p>“The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code… laws essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.”
-John Quincy Adams</p>
<p>I think in the context of displaying a document, or replica, of historical significance which is accepted by all as a basis for the creation of our country and our laws by our founding fathers, it is appropriate to display the Ten Commandments along with the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and other historically important documents. I also doubt there is a Congressman or Senator on either side of the aisle who could recite from memory the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or even sing the second verse of the National Anthem. So that a man stumbles when asked to list the Ten Commandments is not really a big deal to me.</p>
<p>The person who used the phrase ‘Bible-thumper’ in this forum cannot speak to tolerance with any credibility in my opinion. I wonder…does this person have hateful references for Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Buddhists, etc…? Would that person be brave enough to share them here?</p>
<p>
I agree, but only THREE? Come on. That’s a mere 30%, a big fat ‘F’; and for someone who only seconds before called them the foundation of law and maintained that without them we are morally lost as a nation, it is laughable that he can’t name them. Does this mean Westmoreland is morally bankrupt himself? Or just mind-numbingly stupid? (My vote’s with the latter.)</p>
<p>and…
I have to respond to this, too. I’m assuming ‘the one that matters’ is the Constitution, in which case I have to agree to an extent. The Christian right is doing a awfully good job of trying to turn America into some sort of “city on a hill”–but then again this attitude is the same one that the Puritans had back in the 1600s. It’s nothing new. As a Christian myself, I obviously don’t have a problem with “protecting our archaic little book,” and I would hope that those of you who don’t believe the Bible would nonetheless respect both its teachings and those who believe it. What I do have a problem with is what you seem to be referring to–promoting the Bible at the expense of the Constitution. In that case I agree wholeheartedly. But please, don’t lump all Bible-believing Christians with those who can’t wrap their heads around the Establishment clause, and please don’t belittle the Bible simply because it is being misused by a few.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true, however, such persons are not trying to place such documents in public buildings. They are already a crucial component of our government, and I am sure those who drafted and instituted them knew every bit about them.</p>
<p>
Why try to change the subject? This post isn’t about me. Its about a blatant hypocrite who wants to push America towards a theocracy. Hateful reference? Hardly.</p>
<p>Evanglicals make it a point to know their Bible. The Commandments are one of the cornerstones of the Bible. Missing 7 of these is almost unthinkable for this type of Christian, but not implausible for a politician who is a little weak on the fatih but is not above trading on his professed faith for some votes.</p>
<p>Not unlike the zealots who refer to the “separation of church and state” “as written in the first amendment,” like it was gospel truth. </p>
<p>Not only does it not qualify as good-news, it is, suprisingly to most, not even written there. Westmoreland is in “good” and ignominious company when it comes to quoting the legal canons these days: whether they be secular, or spiritual.</p>
<p>Idmom,
very well said.</p>
<p>Surely trading faith for votes is well rehearsed and practiced in a certain circle.</p>
<p>Dadguy, I am curious how you are still at three posts when I have seen at least 50 posts by you! Post count on CC is peculiar!</p>
<p>The cafe doesn’t add-up posts.</p>
<p>FountainSiren,</p>
<p>You’re being a tad disengenuous here, don’t you think? No, the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the First Amendment, but the concept most assuredly is. Lawyers refer to it as the establishment clause, and it’s the very first thing in the 1st Amendment:</p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>Agreed,
inasmuch as <em>congress shall make no law establishing religion</em> or <em>prohibiting the exersise thereof</em>; beyond that, it seems, is bigotry and intolerance. </p>
<p>There will be no <em>national religion</em> and no prohibition of the practice of religion as seen fit by Americans. </p>
<p>Seems clear to me.</p>
<p>Historical point:</p>
<p>John Quincy Adams was NOT a founding father as he was 20 at the time of the Constutional Convention. John Adams, his father, contended that if the rules against stealing and coveting weren’t given to us by God, then we would have had to develop these ourselves. He straddled the fence a little more than Jr. did.</p>
<p>“Not unlike the zealots who refer to the “separation of church and state” “as written in the first amendment,” like it was gospel truth.” (FS)</p>
<p>I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought the phrase “separation of church and state” came from the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It seems a bit extreme to belittle him as a “zealot”, but if you object to his interpretation of the Constitution, he would be the first to support your freedom of speech.</p>