|
14119. PelleNilsson - 3/12/2005 10:16:03 PM So that's what you did with it, Judith? No wonder I felt so dizzy afterwards. You naughty, naugthy girl! 14120. judithathome - 3/13/2005 12:54:18 AM ;-) 14121. judithathome - 3/13/2005 5:14:29 PM Arky, Arky!!! I know you don't like Paul Greenberg but he has the most hysterical editorial in our paper today about the display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol.
And not to brag, but my letter is one of three printed in the paper today on that very subject!
I would link to it by I'm blocked from the on-line edition this week. Maybe Mags or Robert can link to it later.... 14122. judithathome - 3/13/2005 5:19:30 PM Oh wow...I guess I CAN get in there!
Greenberg editorial
And here are the three letters:
Letters page 14123. Magoseph - 3/13/2005 6:33:36 PM The holy, the profane and the Texas Capitol
By Paul Greenberg
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Holy -- Hó ly --, a. 1. Set apart to the service or worship of God; hallowed; sacred; reserved from profane or common use; holy vessels; a holy priesthood. "Holy rites and solemn feasts." -- Milton.-- Webster's, 1913
Is that monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol unconstitutional? That is, does it represent an establishment of religion or interfere with the free exercise thereof in violation of the First Amendment?
The weaving course of church-state law being what it is, I wouldn't hazard a guess. But confused as they are, cases like this one before the U.S. Supreme Court can be a rich source of amusement for those who can keep their wits, and a sense of humor, about them -- even while discussing religion.
Today's highlight from the debate over the Big Ten comes from Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, who wrote a piece in defense of the monument explaining that it was just one of 17 different graven images on the Capitol grounds and therefore perfectly legal.
How's that again? Well, think of those Christmas displays with the manger scene squeezed in between Santa, his elves, Rudolph the Red-Nosed and a bunch of candy canes. All the trimmings are supposed to take the religion out of the religious centerpiece and make it constitutionally acceptable.
The theory is that if you just add enough doodads, the créche becomes part of an historical or cultural display rather than an endorsement of religion. In short, commit a profanation -- literally -- and the holy can be safely desanctified.
This monument in Austin -- a tribute to the Ten Commandments -- is supposed to be rendered acceptable by scattering 16 different others around it. Or at least that's what the state of Texas contends. The Ten Commandments then become just a kind of cultural, even archaeological, display to illustrate the origins of law.
Unlike the real statutes and ordinances of the state of Texas, explains its attorney general, the words of the Ten Commandments are not to be taken as actual law. As in I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing …
As Texas' attorney general assured all and sundry, "The reasonable observer is not likely to mistake these commands for official statements of Texas policy."
Who can argue with that?
To put the attorney general's position plain, just 'cause we put up the Ten Commandments doesn't mean we believe in 'em enough to endorse 'em. That is, the display on the Capitol grounds, to quote General Abbott, "does not constitute an endorsement of religion."
Some of us outside Texas always suspected as much about heathen Texas, but we wouldn't have dared say so before now. But now that we've got an attorney general's opinion on our side …
Whatever the Supreme Court rules in this case, the arguments being made before it demonstrate the most predictable result of mixing church and state:
Once the state lays its hands on a religious symbol, and chooses to use it for its own purposes, surrounding the holy with generous heapings of the profane, the Ten Commandments with other icons, the religious symbol is … well, no longer religious.
In this instance, the state of Texas has taken what is holy -- set apart for the worship of God -- and used it for a secular purpose. This display in Austin may or may not be constitutional, but it's certainly not reverent, even if it's meant to be. It's only tacky.
Strange, isn't it? When the state chooses to imitate, even replace, the church, nothing can seem so false. Or give rise to such empty contentiousness.
Yet when this nation respects the wall between church and state, between the holy and the profane, and limits government to its proper sphere, honoring the greatness to be found there, there is something sacred about the product of such restraint.
Consider:
ust a few blocks from the Supreme Court of the United States, where the demonstrators gathered outside the courtroom with their separate but equal signs and chants about the Ten Commandments, pro and con, there is a monument to perhaps the greatest of American presidents and spirits.
Is there anything holier in these still united States than the Lincoln Memorial at midnight, with the moonlight illuminating those familiar features?
"In this temple," the inscription above the seated Lincoln reads, "as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the Union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever." The immortal words of his Second Inaugural are carved into the granite there, as they are into American history, and American hearts.
Daniel Chester French's massive yet utterly human, fatherly Lincoln looks down with sorrow at the suffering he's seen, yet with malice toward none, with charity for all. And the visitor is overwhelmed with gratitude, even awe, at what God wrought and a nation endured.
Surely such a nation, a nation that could produce such a man, and such words, shall endure, even after it has entered history, or even archaeology. And perspective is restored in that temple of the spirit.
When we refuse to make a cheap show of faith, but together honor what is properly ours to honor, our faith shines, even and especially in the darkest night.
14124. Magoseph - 3/13/2005 6:34:33 PM Baptists and the Ten Commandments
Pat Carlson's Thursday letter ("Religion and the state") contained factual and theological errors.
The Baptist Joint Committee is not "a legal arm of the BGCT."
Rather, the Baptist General Convention of Texas is one of many Baptist bodies supporting the ministry of the BJC, an organization that has been working for nearly 70 years to protect the historic Baptist principle of religious liberty -- that religion must be freely exercised and neither helped nor harmed by government.
The BJC opposes government endorsement of the Ten Commandments monument at the Texas Capitol because the monument does not have a secular purpose, as required by the Constitution.
Even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia recognized during March 2 arguments before the Supreme Court that the commandments are primarily a religious text -- they signify God's covenant with a particular people. "I am the Lord thy God" is not a secular phrase.
Carlson correctly noted the BJC's argument that the commandments did not exercise "an extraordinary influence on American law."
The many documents that did influence our law say little about religion and nothing about the commandments. Further, the United States is not a Puritan theocracy; it is a constitutional republic in which all religions are protected and none is endorsed.
The First Amendment is not subject to the will of the majority; it protects the minority, the individual, even the atheist.
This doesn't mean that Christians cannot be "involved politically." To the contrary, separation of church and state allows all Americans to present their beliefs in the public square.
This has fostered an unparalleled religiosity in our nation. We can practice our faith freely, without coercion, allowing it to be both genuine and prophetic.
Contrary to Carlson's assertion, the BJC fully supports the teachings of the Ten Commandments. However, the BJC believes (as Baptists always have) that "spreading the word of God" is the duty of individuals and churches, not the government.
Wise Baptists must ask: Who are the best teachers of the Ten Commandments -- parents and churches or politicians and judges?
Executive Director J. Brent Walker, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Washington
•
I was amused and saddened by Carlson's letter.
She appears to be another of the "BINOs" (Baptists In Name Only) who have driven the so-called conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. They know and care nothing for Baptist history, heritage and polity.
From the early days of the republic, Baptists have been at the forefront of efforts to keep church and state separate in the United States. The religious freedom clauses in the First Amendment are there largely due to the efforts of John Leland and Virginia Baptists. Until recently, most Baptists have fervently believed that religious liberty is best guaranteed by keeping church and state separate.
The Baptist Joint Committee was established in 1936 to speak to religious liberty issues on behalf of many Baptist organizations, including the Baptist General Convention of Texas.
The committee is not, as Carlson contended, the BGCT's "legal arm." The Southern Baptist Convention also provided major financial support until the committee's traditional Baptist positions began to interfere with the secular political aspirations of some of the SBC's fundamentalist leaders.
The BJC did indeed file amici curiae briefs in the Ten Commandments cases heard by the Supreme Court. These briefs argued, among other things, that attempts made by supporters of public displays to morph the commandments into secular documents cheapened their deeply held Judeo-Christian religious values.
This argument, as well as the basic position taken by the BJC on public display, is completely consistent with traditional Baptist doctrine and practice on separation of church and state, even though it may ruffle the feathers of BINOs like Carlson.
David R. Bradley
Winters
•
The most telling lines in Carlson's letter were the final two: "It certainly makes me angry as a conservative Southern Baptist. The main reason I'm involved politically is because of my Christianity."
She identified herself as chairwoman of the Tarrant County Republican Party.
Thanks, Ms. Carlson, for letting us know that your Republican Party cares about nothing so much as pushing the religious right's agenda on us Texans. I've long suspected this to be true, but it was nice to see it in black and white -- an unusual instance of candor from a political party chairwoman.
Judith Spencer
Westworth Village 14125. arkymalarky - 3/13/2005 7:35:20 PM Thanks Judith, and congrats on the letter!
I will try to hold my nose and read the Greenberg piece. Considering a blind hog, and all. He's generally such a sanctimonious simp with a thesaurus I can barely stomach more than a line or two. He fancies himself witty and urbane, and to most Arkies who read his rag of a paper, maybe he is. But I get very weary of reading his empty platitudes sprinkled with what he thinks are incisive cuts and words he knows damn well most Arkies, even educated ones, don't know. He treats his colums like a verbal Hummer, imo. 14126. robertjayb - 3/13/2005 7:35:21 PM Good stuff Judith and Magoseph. But for a panicky moment there I thought Paul Greenberg had moved to Texas. Seems to be just a mishmosh of bylines. 14127. arkymalarky - 3/13/2005 7:44:29 PM Good letter, Judith!
I agree the Greenberg piece is good. Being Jewish, I know he tires of the Christian Right injecting itself into government (and for anyone else who might chime in, yes, I know where the Ten Commandments come from--it's the overall religion-based policy pushing that's irksome to lots of Christians, to say nothing of non-Christian Americans), but he was more direct and, frankly, better in his writing than usual. He gets into the sound of his own typing and he can be unbearable, like watching two people make out in public--but I didn't catch that tone in this piece. Guess he saves his better work for other states. 14128. arkymalarky - 3/13/2005 7:45:29 PM I wish, Robert. Y'all can have Hutchinson, too. In fact, we'd give you two Hutchinsons for the price of one.
And no, we don't want to trade them for Tom DeLay. 14129. prolph - 3/14/2005 1:48:57 AM Should the commandments be in Religion? and/or politics? Never mind.I don't care. There has been an ongoing ferver over the large cross looming over Soledad in San Diego. It is finally tp be takedn down mudst tears and cheers. Again I don't care--it is ugly though.
I failed to say hello. Hello all. I have been not s o much llurking as lurchng. I intend to reply to a various posts but by the time I return the talk is of ffunerals or such,
Here are a few answers:
no Wabbit did not go to Florida for several reasons including twp giant rcedars ofand breaking many tiles Leb enon at my neigbors yard falling on my roof. 14130. prolph - 3/14/2005 2:03:00 AM more. Congratulations to A5, the lovely hands wearing his ring.
I can't seem to fix errors in preview,I ment midst not must.
I know the weather has been bad everywhere but the rains here have been devestaating. Houses sliding down hills , sink holes appearing in many places. The sink holes ar due to antiquated underground drain pipes. We've known about the crumbling infrastrlucture for years but
the city preferred a crumby ball park instead of repaiirs.
A lot of roof damage and falling trees, my roof is tile and not seriously damaged but I had to wait awhile for repairs because there wer so many
roofs far worse than mine.
lightning bugs, Patsy 14131. wonkers2 - 3/14/2005 4:01:24 AM Cap'n Dirty sez, "Is a verbal hummer the same as an oral hummer?" 14132. arkymalarky - 3/14/2005 4:23:04 AM You'd have to ask Paul, Cap'n D. ;-)
HEY PATSY! Great to see you here! 14133. Magoseph - 3/14/2005 12:47:45 PM The Cap'n sez, "Are you kiddin'? Wonkers won't let the missus come near the Tomater Sloop!"
I just saw that answer in Sex & Gender, Cap’n—you mean to tell me that Mrs. Wonkers objects to your presence on the sloop?
Hello, Mac, Ali, and every Motie on earth, still lurking…maybe, or rather hopefully—I KISS YOU! Who said that “I kiss you”, it rings a bell--who used to say that, do you remember?
14134. alistairconnor - 3/14/2005 12:57:56 PM Come now Mago - let's not call the roll of the dear departed. That only leads to talking about people behind their backs. You never know when they are going to pop up again.
They are all welcome back. Especially the one you are referring to. 14135. Magoseph - 3/14/2005 1:40:39 PM Oh, I wouldn't do that, talking about them that way--you know, Ali, I always make a point of only saying nice things behind people’s backs. As a child of six, I was vilified because I said to everyone who listened that I saw the priest kissing Mme Barnouin on the lips—I was long gone when the priest decamped with her, but I never forgot how ostracized I was for a long time, which was for ever at that age.
Anyway, I suspect that some Moties may not mind coming back and say hello to us, but maybe if they did, some may be the butt of jokes elsewhere.
14136. Macnas - 3/14/2005 3:35:15 PM I am so disappointed that I did not win 5 million in the weekend lottery. 14137. alistairconnor - 3/14/2005 4:03:02 PM So am I, but this disappointment is mitigated by the fact that I didn't buy a ticket.
In the same vein : I'm disappointed that I didn't get jumped by Catherine Zeta-Jones, but it's not really surprising because I didn't invite her to drop in. 14138. thoughtful - 3/14/2005 4:20:48 PM Pelle, glad to hear that you're ok, just stressed. I was getting quite concerned. (NOT to be confused with 'concerned'!)
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
