Removing the Ten Commandments

[Shaker]

It woud be good, wouldn't it, HH.  No notices on the walls, no instructions, no nothing.

'Ladies,' 'Gents,' 'Library this way' and 'No smoking' don't count as the endorsement of religious belief systems. I'm pretty sure we're OK with notices of the kind I've just mentioned.

[Harrowby Hall]

And I could spend all day coveting my neighbour's ass without feeling guilty.   

[wigginhall]

We've pretty much arrived there in the UK, haven't we?  I haven't noticed in government or municipal offices, any testaments of belief, God is great, salutation to the illustrious Ganesh, etc. 

[Shaker]

We've pretty much arrived there in the UK, haven't we?  I haven't noticed in government or municipal offices, any testaments of belief, God is great, salutation to the illustrious Ganesh, etc.

It's one of the peculiar differences between a de jure secular state and a de jure religious one, wiggles.

[wigginhall]

Yes, good point.  In the US it is positively illegal, I think.  Ditto France?

I remember Obama going to a school prize-giving, and every religious symbol had to be covered up, as the Pres. is Pres. of a secular state, not founded upon the Christian (or any other) religion. 

[ippy]

Hope exactly which part of equal for all citizens is it that you don't like?

This law applies to all religions equally and don't think "In god" we trust printed on their dollar isn't contested, it does in fact contravene their secular legislation.

I can understand if you don't like the secular part of US legislation although of course I wouldn't agree with you but I don't understand why do you pretend that you don't understand the US secular legislation?

ippy

[Hope]

We've pretty much arrived there in the UK, haven't we?  I haven't noticed in government or municipal offices, any testaments of belief, God is great, salutation to the illustrious Ganesh, etc.

Have we 'pretty much arrived'?  Can you think of any historical sites where such testaments exist(ed), other than in sites that were primarily religious?

Hope exactly which part of equal for all citizens is it that you don't like?

Nothing.  What I dislike is the things that are sold as 'secularism', but plainly aren't.

I can understand if you don't like the secular part of US legislation although of course I wouldn't agree with you but I don't understand why do you pretend that you don't understand the US secular legislation?

I'm don't so much dislike the 'secular parts of US legislation' (or anywhere's for that matter); rather, like many, I dislike those parts of legislation that I believe to be detrimental to humanity and society as a whole. Some of these elements could be described as 'secular'; some of them as 'religious'.

[Shaker]

What I dislike is the things that are sold as 'secularism', but plainly aren't.

Which are ... ?

I dislike those parts of legislation that I believe to be detrimental to humanity and society as a whole. Some of these elements could be described as 'secular'; some of them as 'religious'.

Examples of each?

[Harrowby Hall]

Yes, good point.  In the US it is positively illegal, I think.  Ditto France?

I remember Obama going to a school prize-giving, and every religious symbol had to be covered up, as the Pres. is Pres. of a secular state, not founded upon the Christian (or any other) religion.

I have stated this on this forum before. I own a very small property in deepest France.

In my commune are three churches which have been restored and maintained by the commune which also owns them. They are honoured as historic buildings.

The one in my village is used by both Catholics and Anglicans for services and funerals and wedding ceremonies. (The marriage legally takes place in a civil ceremony conducted by the maire. It may or may not be followed by a religious ceremony which has no legal significance.)

I know of many churches that are owned by municipalities. They are then available for religious purposes on request. Such is the nature of secularism.

[Harrowby Hall]

I remember Obama going to a school prize-giving, and every religious symbol had to be covered up, as the Pres. is Pres. of a secular state, not founded upon the Christian (or any other) religion.

I think it more likely that, if it was a public school, such symbols were strictly illegal. The president's presence was not a relevent factor. They should not have been there anyway.

Does it not strike you as paradoxical that the inauguration of a new president in the USA is a religious event? The new president swears an oath on the bible that he will uphold the constitution. Except G W Bush, of course, who swore an oath on the constitution that he would uphold the bible ....

[OH MY WORLD!]

That's a lie. Have a cookie Harrow because a monkey on a rock can tell better lies than you. Funny lies that is.

[Harrowby Hall]

That's a lie. Have a cookie Harrow because a monkey on a rock can tell better lies than you. Funny lies that is.

What is a lie? Do you habitually go around calling people liars?

Could you defend yourself if I decided to make an issue of it?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

TBH I don't want Christianity associated with Oklahoma's legislature.

[Anchorman]

TBH I don't want Christianity associated with Oklahoma's legislature.

-
Wot HWB said.

[Hope]

I know of many churches that are owned by municipalities. They are then available for religious purposes on request. Such is the nature of secularism.

Were those church buildings either built by the municipality, or bought off their original owners at a valid market price?  Or where they simply 'taken over'.

[Hope]

What I dislike is the things that are sold as 'secularism', but plainly aren't.

Which are ... ?

As I've mentioned before, some years ago Cardiff Council decided against Christmas Festivities and chose instead to run a Winter Festival that started with Ramadan (starting in mid-November that year) and concluded after the Chinese New Year.  Initially there were no complaints, until someone asked the question of why they had done this (the extended event cost two or three times that of the average 'Christmas' event).  In reality the 'Christmas' event had a large number of events and attractions that had nothing to do with Christmas per se - a public outdoor ice rink; a German bierkeller; various specialist shops housed in small huts in public spaces in the centre of Cardiff; etc.  In response to the question, a council spokesman said that they had decided to have a secular event in response to concerns expressed by Muslim community leaders the previous year.  When Muslim community leaders asked which concerns these had been, the council was unable to provide a response (not least because the Muslim community had expressed no such concerns; in fact they liked to see Christmas celebrated, in the way that they liked to see Eid and Ramadan celebrated).  Ironically, the extended event had fairly few different events and attractions to usual.

I dislike those parts of legislation that I believe to be detrimental to humanity and society as a whole. Some of these elements could be described as 'secular'; some of them as 'religious'.

Examples of each?

Some of the Welfare rules introduced by the last Government, especially those concerning the disabled.

The requirement that the Prime Minister of the day chooses, or at worst has to OK the Church Commissioners' choice of new Archbishop of Canterbury.

Whoops, missed out a {quote} marker

[Harrowby Hall]

I know of many churches that are owned by municipalities. They are then available for religious purposes on request. Such is the nature of secularism.

Were those church buildings either built by the municipality, or bought off their original owners at a valid market price?  Or where they simply 'taken over'.

So your agenda is to imply that they were obtained by some underhand means? Anything to undermine "secularism"?

Buildings hundreds of years old are not the property of some incorporated business, they "belong" to the community.

In many cases they were abandoned by ecclesiastical authorities because they were not prepared to maintain them.

[Sriram]

Secularism should mean equal respect for all religions. Not equal disrespect for all religions. Secularism should not be about rejecting religion but about accepting all religions as equally valid.

[Sassy]

Surely the point is why would Christians need a six foot Ten Commandments when it is breaking the law?

The bible shows why in any age since Christ the "Christian" does not need a six foot granite block with the Ten Commandment engraved on it.

The New Covenant was not to be like the old. No outward reminder is necessary...

Jeremiah 31:31-34.


Jeremiah 31:31-34King James Version (KJV)

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Highlighted in red and bold you see two things clearly....

The New Covenant is not like the old. Gods New Covenant is written within the man.... That is why the Holy Spirit now teaches every individual and the power is within.

[Sassy]

Why does God and the laws bother men so much that a 6ft granite stone with the 10 commandments written on them need to be removed?

Because it breaks the law by violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Because man made a law after it was erected which made what they previously did illegal... But should it not be excluded if it already existed before the law as it is an historical monument them?

If, they believe God does not exist then why the bothersome need to remove anything relating to God?

See previous answer.

God existing is against the breaks the law by violating the Establishment clause of the constitution? Are they really that thick and stupid....

Or is the truth the fact that Satan knows he cannot change the final outcome but will lead as many with him as he can?

That's not a fact but a belief.

The Christians are not the ones making up laws and Establishment clauses which makes God or the ten commandments they originally erected illegal...

I wonder if church signs outside churches will be next of pub signs like the Church Inn... Really pathetic isn't it...

[Sassy]

It was only erected 2012 and four residents objected...

"Quite simply, the Oklahoma Supreme Court got it wrong. The court completely ignored the profound historical impact of the Ten Commandments on the foundation of Western law. Furthermore, the court's incorrect interpretation of Article 2, Section 5 contradicts previous rulings of the court," he said.

Pruitt said his office will file a petition with the court for a rehearing in light of the broader implications of the ruling on other areas of state law.

"In the interim, enforcement of the court's order cannot occur. Finally, if Article 2, Section 5, is going to be construed in such a manner by the court, it will be necessary to repeal it," he said.

[Sassy]

TBH I don't want Christianity associated with Oklahoma's legislature.

Are you a Christian? Do you live in Oklahoma?
Well what has it to do with you anyway or what you want.
Immaterial....

[Anchorman]

With respect, Sass:
Have you delved into some of the views expressed by 'bible belters'?
They are about as far from the Gospel as I think it's possible to get.
Some wear croosses, quote the KJV like dyspeptic parrots....and blithely ignore much of the NT...and several of the Ten Commandments in the OT as well.
And I DO know several Christians of several denominations who hailed from Oklahoma....before you ask.

[Hope]

So your agenda is to imply that they were obtained by some underhand means? Anything to undermine "secularism"?

No, simply asking the question.

Buildings hundreds of years old are not the property of some incorporated business, they "belong" to the community.

In many cases they were abandoned by ecclesiastical authorities because they were not prepared to maintain them.

Not sure that "Buildings hundreds of years old are not the property of some incorporated business, they "belong" to the community".  For instance, our church celebrates 150 years this year and the building 148 years.  It does not belong to the community; it belongs to its members.

If, however, the buildings were abandoned by the ecclesiastical authorities as too expensive to maintain that is another matter.  One has to ask why they were abandoned.  Were they too expensive to maintain.  Had the membership dropped so far as to make them obsolete?  Were they so old that to bring them up to a safe standard would have been a bad use of finance?  Were they so unfit for purpose that it would be better stewardship of money to vacate/sell the property and build a more modern building - after all, a church congregation is a community in itself?

I can think of plenty of British congregations that are not permitted to improve their places of worship because at some point in the past, a heritage listing has been placed on a physical building when the people are the church.  I can remember one friend saying that they couldn't even sell their building and set up elsewhere in the vicinity because of some age-old local by-law .

[Sassy]

With respect, Sass:
Have you delved into some of the views expressed by 'bible belters'?
They are about as far from the Gospel as I think it's possible to get.
Some wear croosses, quote the KJV like dyspeptic parrots....and blithely ignore much of the NT...and several of the Ten Commandments in the OT as well.
And I DO know several Christians of several denominations who hailed from Oklahoma....before you ask.

Don't you know or understand your own Lords words who you claim to know?

Matthew 16:18King James Version (KJV)

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

King James Bible
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.



Gods Kingdom are  those who obey the commandments to love God and their neighbour who are born of the Spirit and Truth.

How does Gods commandments connect what you have written?
The Words of God will stand in the hearts and minds of those men women who know God who are baptised in the Spirit.
We do not need to judge the world, Christ will do that when the time comes...