<p>Ten Things I Hate about Commandments:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1kqqMXWEFs[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1kqqMXWEFs</a></p>
<p>marite, to answer your post from a few pages back, I did think that some of Westmoreland’s responses were tongue-in-cheek and some were serious. But I don’t know the man, and I could easily be wrong. It is clear that he and Colbert occupy opposite tails of the population intelligence distribution. </p>
<p>I would not be so generous as to give him 30% on the Ten Commandments pop quiz. I might give some partial credit for “Don’t steal?”, for example, but not as much as 10%. I can recite the Ten Commandments, as well as large chunks of the Baltimore Catechism, even though I’m no longer religious. It’s hard for me to believe that anyone who is as religious as Westmoreland claims to be can’t do this.</p>
<p>“it is perfectly acceptable for people to express their sexuality in various forms of dress and undress in city-sanctioned parades, yet heaven forbid someone from expressing their religion in public…”</p>
<p>The Liberal Neo-Victorian would simply faint.</p>
<p>“It’s hard for me to believe that anyone who is as religious as Westmoreland claims to be can’t do this.”</p>
<p>Maybe it’s ADD.:)</p>
<p>Oh man nspeds that was funny as hell. I love that movie despite not believing in any god. It was funny the way they present it to have a different story line.</p>
<p>
Or not writing coherent sentences haha :D</p>
<p>FS,</p>
<p>It may seem anomalous that the ACLU would be considering a proposal to restrict public criticism of the organization by members of the board. While this is not a proposal that I support, we’re not talking about government action here. To the extent that a civil right is implicated, it’s another First Amendment right, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” For freedom of association (another phrase that doesn’t appear in the Constitution, but that’s what we’re talking about) to exist meaningfully, private organizations have to be free to regulate the speech of their members. The NBA’s policy of fining its owners for publicly criticising officiating is a demonstration of civil liberty, not its antithesis.</p>
<p>History Question:</p>
<p>Has the Ten Commandments ever been on display in Congress at any time in our nation’s history the way Westmoreland proposes?</p>
<p>Here’s a link to the site of the some of the folks who are trying to politicize the Ten Commandments:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.morallaw.org/monument.htm[/url]”>http://www.morallaw.org/monument.htm</a></p>
<p>The very point of this exercise in political theater, it seems to me, was to create a monument uses public funds to scream, “Hey, we’re a Christian nation! You got a problem with that, buddy?” </p>
<p>This was a thumb in the eye of the ACLU, intended to goad them into responding with litigation, so that Moore and his fellow provocateurs could whine that Christians are a persecuted religious minority.</p>
<p>That’s what makes the Westmoreland thing so funny. He doesn’t really care about the Ten Commandments. He only cares about creating a wedge issue. That’s what I call taking the Lord’s name in vain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Im not so sure I agree, though it may have served such a purpose by those who worship within the secrecy of the ACLUa rare breed. Sounds more like their take than that of a Baptist. But, as they say, just because youre paranoid it doesnt mean everyone is not out to get you.</p>
<p>Many monuments decorate many buildings. How many of those who enjoy both the monuments depiction and what it is they represent could hold court on those there engraved? Many, for instance, are moved by the idea of Moses, Plato, Aristotle, Athena, Zeus, Galileo, Newton, and Minerva and prefer their university campuses and government buildings to be decorated with their august statues; how many of those so enthused by their cultural past could give a rendition of Platos cave, Aristotles ethics, Zeus eyebrow, the Quinquatria of Minerva, Galileos optics, Newtons gravity? </p>
<p>It pleases most to extend themselves beyond the momentous confines of their lives into the distant mythologies and moments that seem to live through the past and likely into the future well past their own lives–there is something eternal in it. </p>
<p>Im sure a Baptist is as moved by a statue of St Paul as by a statue of Caesar, the Ten Commandments as Hammurabis Code most anyhow.</p>
<p>Soon enough, there will be lovingly crafted statues of Bill Gates decorating parks and industrial parks. Charmed, there will likely be no protest.</p>
<p>FS- do you think the ACLU serves any purpose at all…I do, I think it serves an invaluable service, but I wonder if you think there should be any group like the ACLU at all</p>
<p>Any group that involves people, humans, is going to have issues, as people are fallible, but I wonder how it is that you think those of the Christian persuasion seem to be less prone to having secret agendas, a paranoia or fallibility than the rest of humanity</p>
<p>If a person wants to post something in a permenant way that will cause a “confrontation” and the person doesn’t even know what he wants to post says, what would be his reasons for doing so, and to not admit he might not have the most honest and open reasons for doing so, while in the same breadth calling those that question his true motives as being paranoid and working in secrecy shows your unwillingness to really look at the motives of Westmoreland, whle cloking your own response in big words, and clouding the issue with name dropping and florishes of historical footnotes</p>
<p>So, what do you think Westmorelands motives are? And a direct answer would be nice…</p>
<p>As well, I find it interesting that groups that have internal issues, any at all, cause you to belittle the group as a whole</p>
<p>And have you read the other thread about the Voting Rights Act? I am very curious as to your take on that…</p>
<p>As a person who seems to respect and study history, I would be interested if you would also defend Westmorelands finding the Voting Rights Acts something he doesn;t want to renew</p>
<p>I despise liberals but I think ACLU is important as a watchdog for 1st amendment infringements. I don’t agree with all their cases, and I hate when they don’t take a consistent stand on the right to pack heat. In short, its a fairly nawrrowminded organizatin, but it serves its purpose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CGM,
I do not think Christians are less prone to any misdeed, at allmaybe hubris? </p>
<p>OTOH, your long history of posting on this matter demonstrates quite clearly that you believe People of Faith are not only more prone but are inveterate villains in this regard. Nonetheless, there is, however, a material difference between the ACLU and the self-help orientation of people of faith. One (ACLU) has a constitutional aim to to regulate all to do the good, as they see fit, through law; while the other (religions) merely wishes to transform the individual subject in spirit (while sporting not a few blowhards and hooligans amidst the ranks).</p>
<p>As to the history of the ACLU, like Unions and other civil protectors of the vulnerable, they preformed a great service in a time of great crisisas I read history. However, having achieved their greatest aims, they are now left to kvetch over the scraps of the present and the glories of the past. The recent talk of limiting the free-speech of their executive members, to me, shows that even they believe that their social-relevance is in free-fall.</p>
<p>As to Westmoreland, I know next to nothing about him other than what has been reported here; he seems something of a clown, as my comments in this thread should have indicated to even the most disinterested reader for which you clearly stand head and shoulders above most (post #21, greatest enemy: Steven Colbert; post #64, rhetorical problem: ADD). </p>
<p>However, it may be deeply felt convictions that motivate the congressman not unlike those deeply felt by the fidgety ACLU executives mentioned above or by the speed-reading CGM, herself.</p>
<p>“Im sure a Baptist is as moved by a statue of St Paul as by a statue of Caesar, the Ten Commandments as Hammurabis Code most anyhow.”</p>
<p>I’ve never seen a statue of St. Paul, or a statue of anyone else, in any of the dozens of Baptist churches I’ve attended. I was told when I was a small boy that Catholics have statues in their churches because they were idol worshippers. </p>
<p>For that matter, I’ve never heard a Baptist refer to “St. Paul” except by way of reference to the smaller of the Twin Cities. The fancier preachers might refer to him as “the Apostle Paul,” but to most, he’s just plain Paul, devoid of any honorific. </p>
<p>I have to thank you for the gift of mental image of Baptists being moved by a statue of Hammurabi’s code. That’s not one I could have conjured up on my own.</p>
<p>GB,</p>
<p>R. Hofstadter, once referred to the following little ditty in his rambling, but dated, materialist tome, “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life”:</p>
<p>An Episcopalian is a Presbyterian who lives off his assets;
A Presbyterian is a Methodist with a college education;
A Methodist is a Baptist with Shoes.</p>
<p>It would seem this view of Baptists coincides with your own; not able to afford shoes, perhaps memorial statues and pricey honorifics were completely off-the-table.</p>
<p>Not being of the Christian faith myself, I will have to excuse myself in not understanding the common view of the Baptists Sacellum, such as it is (are they unroofed, as well?).</p>
<p>FS,</p>
<p>Ouch! </p>
<p>No, I don’t share Hofstadter’s view of Baptists. (Just to lay a few cards on the table, two members of my family are ordained Baptist ministers; my father was Baptist deacon, and for a time, a lay pastor.)</p>
<p>The Baptist preference for unadorned churches is theological in origin, not fiscal.</p>
<p>There’s a grain of truth behind Hofstadter’s harsh hyperbole, I suppose. Christian denominations correspond to some degree to social status, but not always; John D. Rockefeller was a Baptist, for example. And there’s considerable local variation in the ordering of such strata. I’ve heard that in Rhode Island, where Roger Williams founded the first Baptist church, Baptists have traditionally occupy a higher social tier.</p>
<p>FS- I am amazed…you only know what you read…and that is your source of reference</p>
<p>The world is not stagnant and everyday there are issues that are relelvant to unions and the likes of the ACLU everyday, if you do not see that, then you need to get out a bit more</p>
<p>As for the person who despises a whole group of people because of a name, that says more about you than anything you post</p>
<p>And FS- I don’t hate Christians at all, I jsut don’t defend them in all things as you do</p>
<p>FS- I recommend you do less reading and more talking to people that you think don’t need defending anymore</p>
<p>Guess those factory workers processing the food you eat aren’t important to you at all</p>
<p>You are a classest in the largest sense, but you will deny that, but your posts show otherwise</p>
<p>To claim that people don’t need protection anymore, and that rights don’t need protection anymore is the utmost of arrogance and blindness</p>
<p>I surrender to your “reading” of history, having lived none yourself, as being superior to those that have been and are in the trenches</p>
<p>To bad all those people fought for your right to speak out and to continue to do so</p>
<p>Thank them some day</p>
<p>And learn from history, cause you know the old saying, I am sure</p>
<p>If we are not vigilant, we lose, but guess you don’t think about that</p>
<p>Maybe its ignorance, maybe is being naive, maybe its not caring, not sure, but reading, believe me, ain’t enough</p>
<p>It is true that those who “protest” tend to be rather austere in their adornment and beauty…look at Osamaand hippies. Ick! Still others would call it simple and <em>pure</em> [pure is always problematic, wouldnt you say?].</p>
<p>As best I understand these things, Protestants were a bit more <em>Hebrew</em> in their view of graven imagesand, curiously, circumcision. Coincidence? Not likely. </p>
<p>Even at a minimal distance–say Episcopalian and Catholic–there is a decidedly colorless touch to the protest, such as it is. Compare **St John the Divine<a href=“Episcopal”>/b</a> and **St Patrick Cathedral<a href=“RC”>/b</a> in NYC. Both are awe inspiring and transcendent, but St Pattys shines like the stars in heaven, whereas St John glowers (reminds me of an opulent Greek/Roman cave: vast, damp and candle-lit). </p>
<p>However, not to put to fine a point on it, Frithjof Schuon (a scholar of these things) once wrote in this regard,</p>
<p>When you are in a Gothic Cathedral [like Chartres] you know you are standing at the center of the universe; however, when in a Renaissance Cathedral you know only that you are somewhere in Europe.</p>
<p>So well said, don’t you think?</p>
<p>So how’s your “cathedral” stake-up—shoeless?:)</p>
<p>
Gee, thanks CGM:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which class are you referring to? </p>
<p>Not to offend your liberal-elitism, but I was raised in a public charity with refugees and those down on their luck (but happy and optimistic) in and out, day and night. We ate and slept in the same place. We didn’t even have furniture where we lived, (other than bookshelves my dad built) and, lacking tables and chairs, sat on the floor for dinner and conversation. Im pretty sure Ive lived through things you have only seen as a voyeur who peeks in from time to time. Get out more? You know nothing here.</p>
<p>By the way, </p>
<p>I’ll be in your neck of the woods tonight, CGM.
I’m leaving in a few–flying into SF to do an internship at Stanford.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Word salad.</p>