The Daily Ping

P is for Ping. That's good enough for me.

August 26th, 2003

Alabama and the Ten Commandments

In case you haven’t heard, there is a rather large controversy brewing in Alabama. Two years ago, Alabama’s Chief Justice Roy Moore snuck in a 5,000 pound monument of the Ten Commandments into the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building. Despite the separation of church and state that our country is founded upon, the monument was safe until this year when a higher court judge ordered the monument removed.

Now, there are over a hundred protesters forming a human shield of sorts at the Judicial Building. They won’t move, they won’t allow the monument to be removed, and a lot of them are mad as hel… er, heck.

The crux of their arguments is that removal of the monument is tantamount to silencing free speech. To that I say, simply, hogwash. These people have been able to protest on the steps of their state’s courthouse for over a week now. They’ve been able to go to church, worship their selected God, and generally lead normal lives. But the courthouse is a federal building, and the separation of church and state guaranteed in the Constitution means that the Ten Commandments must go.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything as cut-and-dry as this in some time, but the people that have been interviewed on TV and in articles like this one (“If you don’t like the way it is here, go someplace else … Good luck finding a better country.”) aren’t helping their side of the argument any. In general, the folks who have been featured on the side of monument removal have been well-spoken, articulate, and calm. Almost all of the pro-monument folks? Emotional and brash.

I don’t have a problem with other religions, or non-religions for that matter. It’s sad that so many do.

Posted in In the News

Ashley March 29, 2008, 6:05 am

“Despite the separation of church and state that our country is founded upon..”

To begin my dissection, NOWHERE in the founding documents of America can there be found anything pertaining to “separation of church and state.” In fact, the very inspiration of this country originated from the ideas of John Locke, who believed that a HIGHER POWER granted each of us a set of inalienable rights (those same INALIENABLE rights which are the basis of the Declaration of Independence) and who also believed that we are the PROPERTY of said GOD. Believing that we are bestowed with “inalienable rights,” is believing in “right and wrong.” Because logically, we are NOT granted with such “rights.” I can deliberately end another person’s life, that person’s RIGHT to live. So by saying that we are given “inalienable rights”, which means that those rights cannot be taken, is not only fallacious, but blatantly retarded. So by “inalienable” our founding fathers must have meant that it is “wrong” to deprive another person from said rights. But who’s to say what’s “right” and what’s “wrong”? When contemplated in depth, the subject of “right and wrong” is far too blurry upon which to draw an objective opinion. There are no set boundaries that can clearly define actions as being right or wrong; it completely varies with the individual.. UNLESS you are religious, in which case you follow a set of beliefs that TELL you what is right and wrong. Well, I guess that technically “religion” can be construed as beliefs that you yourself have formulated……. straying off topic. So, where was I? Anyway, the point I’m making, is that you can’t use the word “inalienable” unless you believe that a higher power made something inalienable. Because logically, NOTHING is inalienable.

Back on track. Someone posted this excerpt, which I don’t feel like checking to see if it’s verbatim, but assuming based on context that this person was trying to be thorough in argument and that the quote is accurate:

“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.”

Having a religious monument in a federal building is in no way infringing this portion of the Constitution. No laws were passed regarding religion in the erection (only word I could think of) of this monument, no one was prohibited from expressing their own religion, be it the same as that of the monument or not, and obviously no one was debarred from petitioning it. This quote merely states the right to EXPRESS religion, even in government. According to our Constitution, feds have every much as right to exercise a religion as Charles Manson, your next door neighbor, or a teacher in a public school system. To be honest I don’t much care to see the Ten Commandments in a court house (or wherever it was). Or ANYWHERE, for that matter. But I do believe that people should believe what they want, and be able to express those beliefs without discriminating against those who disagree, or trying to shove religion down their throats. I’m non-religious, but I enjoy learning about other religions and discussing religion with individuals who have differing ideas from mine. However, I cannot stand small-minded people who refuse to recognize the world around them and accept that SOMEONE is going to disagree.

I just randomly scrolled up and read this:
“The idea of the court system is to try and look at everything from a fair and unbalanced eye, regardless of personal beliefs held by the judge and jury. Despite my personal beliefs, a courthouse is one place where religion should not be headquartered.”

NO ONE can be unbiased. It’s fucking impossible. Yeah, in a perfect world that made sense, this idea would be feasible. That judge is going to be inclinated towards his religion REGARDLESS of whether or not he “snuck” a monument into a court house. Actually, it’s kind of a good thing in an ironic way… warning you beforehand of what you’re getting yourself into before entering court. :]

Though I still have a reserve of ranting juices, I think I’ll stop now. Head kinda hurts, end of a long week.. but I do feel accomplished that I gave those juices a chance to flow during my vacation. Now I’m just wondering if anyone will ever read this, or if it made sense……..

What is this then?

The Daily Ping is the web's finest compendium of toilet information and Oreo™® research. Too much? Okay, okay, it's a daily opinion column written by two friends. Did we mention we've been doing this for over ten years? Tell me more!

Most Popular Pings