And just an interesting historical note: secularism in America, at least in terms of the public schools, was pushed forward NOT by atheists or secularists, but by the Catholic Church:
Archbishop John Hughes leads Catholic challenge to New York public schools
Archbishop John Hughes is born in Ireland, where he witnesses oppression of Catholics by the country's ruling Protestant minority. After emigrating to America, he is ordained in Philadelphia and then moves to New York, where parents have taken many of the city's 12,000 Catholic children out of the public school system. They see the schools as bigoted against Catholics and object to the use of the Protestant King James version of the Bible. Arguing that no religion should be favored above another, Hughes petitions the city council, demanding Catholics be given money to set up their own schools. After losing the vote, he turns to politics, urging Catholics to vote for his slate of candidates in the 1841 state elections. Nearly all of his candidates win, and in 1842 the state passes a bill ending religious instruction in public schools. Four days later, riots break out; bricks are thrown through Hughes' windows, and the doors of his house are kicked in.
And eugenics were also logically viewed as coercive and/or restrictive and in violation of any number of natural laws...am I not correct? You are assuming that logic, if it strays, cannot correct itself. You are mistaken. This is not said for values which cannot be argued as predicated through religion can it...It can, but it can also lead us away from them. That's what you miss. Why, for example, is there an inherent right to life? One logical argument is that all people are equal, therefore all people have the same right to live, and you cannot live at my expense. However, there are other schools of thought that identify specific groups of people as less deserving of life than others, such as the progressive idea of eugenics. They took Darwin's laws on evolution and argued that human history was progressing and evolving, and that it was the role of government to advance this.
Correct, which is why it was required to be removed when heald as a stand alone monumnet.They are historical documents for Christians, Jews, Muslims and any peoples who have lived under legal systems created by any of those peoples.
They only violate your freedom to worship if they are imposed as the law of the land.
This wasn't how the Supreme Court ruled.Note that I never said that they were to be displayed alone, but if they are, they are no more binding on you than the Roman XII Tables or the Code Napoleon.
How so? The central argument is whether a single religious text on law belongs in ANY US court house. You can type all you like but the answer continues to be no and this was upheld by the US Supreme Court. I am not cherry picking, simply cutting to the chase of the argument...Only the Constitution of the United States, the state and municipality in which you reside and the laws derived from those documents are binding on you. You are free to work on whatever day you see fit, to worship (or not) as you see fit, and to treat your parents with whatever conempt you feel appropriate. Simply displaying the Ten Commandments does not infringe upon your rights.
I never argued that they weren't religious, simply that they were also a historical legal document. Meanwhile, you continue to cherry-pick points from my arguments while ignoring the whole.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|