OK Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down

[Town Heretic]

Then allow me to revise my statement to "The position of those on my side of the issue", which includes both theists and atheists.

Done. :thumb:

And what about this case, which was decided at the state level? Specifically, the Oklahoma state constitution says no public money or property can be used either directly or indirectly for the "benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion."

I don't like the law, at the outset. Its reach seems needlessly encumbering. I don't like the ruling either, since part of the reasoning is that it opens the door for other religious (or a parody of the same) to lay claim based on a similar advance. I'd say that not every claim is equal or represents a seminal moment or contribution to the compact. That's why I favor a case by case analysis.

In light of that, how is erecting a 10 Commandments monument while simultaneously denying other religious viewpoints the same access to public resources, not a violation of Oklahoma's constitution?

If it isn't about religion but about the contribution of it then the argument would have to be made for any inclusion. Again, a case by case examination. So you could make an argument, in Utah, for a monument commemorating the Mormons unique contributions to the establishment of the state.

A stone monument to religious laws, including "You shall have no other Gods", right in front of the state capitol, is hardly a "whisper", especially when done while simultaneously denying other religious viewpoints the same access to public resources.

I don't think it's a whisper either, but I think even a whisper would be opposed, so it's a thin distinction. But as has been noted, a Jew would read that very differently than a Christian.

Denial? Let a group with a legitimate claim and the private funding to back it make their case. I think that until they do they aren't being denied anything. Should other civil rights leaders feel denied their place because MLK, Jr. has a monument? Or is it rather that a special recognition went to a special sacrifice and impact.

And other times rulings are made, precedent is set, and the issue is settled for good. Therefore.......?

Therefore we can't assume this is settled.

No one is saying you shouldn't be able to relitigate if you want. But I'd say you probably should come up with a new line of argumentation that hasn't already been considered and rejected.

Not what you said at any point prior, but okay. And in my response I've noted that the courts aren't the only means to address an issue of this magnitude. For some reason our culture has come to see the Court as a final authority, instead of one authority. These aren't kings, as important and controlling as their holdings can be.

Atheism--the belief that there are no gods--is a religious viewpoint (it's a viewpoint on the question of religion).

I didn't say it lacked an opinion on religion. I noted it wouldn't work to advance and wasn't in this instance advancing a religion.

You missed the point. If you get to unilaterally declare a group to be disingenuous, by the same token why can't I do that to you?

I not only didn't miss it, I've answered the point and illustrated the why of it.

Of course it does. The government erecting a monument of the laws in the Christian Bible, including one that says "You shall have no other Gods", while simultaneously denying the same access to public resources to all other religious viewpoints, is a textbook definition of preferential treatment.

This is the third time you've made the same essential statement. I answered the first, omitted the second and past "of course it does" there's nothing new there. Again, you're not noting any particular impact/advantage in it. Nothing that establishes that or meaningfully, impactfully stamps the state with a particular religion. Not even directly with the two different religions the monument shares in common.

It's no different at all from when creationists say "Science used to say the earth was flat".

No, it's completely different. A matter of science can be objectively, empirically settled.

Neither are actual arguments, but are merely vague appeals to "things change" as justification for wishful thinking.

Rather, in matters that aren't empirical, but a reflection of value and valuation, our government is a great illustration of how fundamentally those values and the laws that follow can change. There are fundamental questions of right that, if altered, alter every other. Those tend to remain stable and require exceptional upheaval to alter.

This isn't one of those claims.

If I were wrong, I would expect some indication of such.

Every man is the reasonable king of his own mind.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't like the law, at the outset. Its reach seems needlessly encumbering. I don't like the ruling either, since part of the reasoning is that it opens the door for other religious (or a parody of the same) to lay claim based on a similar advance. I'd say that not every claim is equal or represents a seminal moment or contribution to the compact. That's why I favor a case by case analysis.

Noted.

If it isn't about religion but about the contribution of it then the argument would have to be made for any inclusion.

And in this case there's nothing to indicate that this monument is about any sort of "contribution". It is a stone monument of Christian religious laws with no other context.

I don't think it's a whisper either, but I think even a whisper would be opposed, so it's a thin distinction. But as has been noted, a Jew would read that very differently than a Christian.

Agreed.

Denial? Let a group with a legitimate claim and the private funding to back it make their case.

They did. An established church of Satanists applied to have a monument to their beliefs erected at the state capitol, and was denied. They even had the monument made with private funding.

Should other civil rights leaders feel denied their place because MLK, Jr. has a monument? Or is it rather that a special recognition went to a special sacrifice and impact.

I would expect you to comprehend the legal difference between a religious monument, and a monument to an actual person.

Therefore we can't assume this is settled.

Or we can assume that it is. You cite issues where legal opinions have changed, I cite issues where they haven't. Apparently which category you put this in depends on the outcome you're wishing for.

I didn't say it lacked an opinion on religion. I noted it wouldn't work to advance and wasn't in this instance advancing a religion.

Not sure what the "it" refers to in your second sentence.

This is the third time you've made the same essential statement. I answered the first, omitted the second and past "of course it does" there's nothing new there.

Sorry, I don't see that at all. The fact remains, the state of Oklahoma erected a monument of Christian laws on public property, and then denied other religious viewpoints the same access.

If that's not preferential, I have to wonder what you think "preferential" even is.

Again, you're not noting any particular impact/advantage in it.

I kind of figured it was self-evident that a government saying "Christianity only in our public spaces" was an advantage for Christianity.

Nothing that establishes that or meaningfully, impactfully stamps the state with a particular religion. Not even directly with the two different religions the monument shares in common.

It is preferential treatment. One could say that by denying other groups the same access, the government is discriminating against them.

No, it's completely different. A matter of science can be objectively, empirically settled.

No, everything in science is provisional. We just take it for granted that many things are "settled".

Rather, in matters that aren't empirical, but a reflection of value and valuation, our government is a great illustration of how fundamentally those values and the laws that follow can change. There are fundamental questions of right that, if altered, alter every other. Those tend to remain stable and require exceptional upheaval to alter.

This isn't one of those claims.

Let's keep it in the same context then. Your wishful appeal is no different than a southerner saying "Legal opinions change, so maybe some day I'll be able to own slaves."

 

[annabenedetti]

I won't. The moment you made it personal (first engagement with me), it became something more important in exchange. You are losing your Christ. This thread is a symptom of you losing your religion. Treating the symptom won't address your falling. You started calling good evil, and evil good, Anna:

You've insisted on personalizing this rather that addressing the generalities of "all of society" that I originally posted to, and I told you I wouldn't go there (talking about my faith) and you kept at it. This thread isn't about me losing my faith, so it's me who's going to walk away from this, I'll save you the trouble. I wanted to talk about the 10 commandments on government property and you wanted to preach at me and I want nothing of it.

Rather than fighting, you are fulfilling their accusations against you and wholly embracing it. I'm sadder for you than I've ever been and believe just because the godless are civil, you mistake that for 'far far better at living.' It is egocentric and without verification, conjecture. If wrong, an evil conjecture and I believe it is, and thus trotted my own giving once again to combat what I believe is a lie. Worse, you then questioned my 'reason' for doing so and this is it. I was responding to what I believe is wrong at best (I've asked, no response or "no I don't give" have been the answers), and an evil lie, at worst.

Don't be sad for me. I'll be fine.

And "trotting out" (odd you phrased it that way) your own giving as a way to combat what you believe is a lie? I really don't get that. But I'm not going to ask you to explain it, no worries.

 

[Town Heretic]

And in this case there's nothing to indicate that this monument is about any sort of "contribution". It is a stone monument of Christian religious laws with no other context.

I thought the argument was precisely a historical one. I haven't read more than a general set out on it. I entered more on the larger point than the particular case, but that was my impression.

They did. An established church of Satanists applied to have a monument to their beliefs erected at the state capitol, and was denied. They even had the monument made with private funding.

Not all arguments are equal or successful. So we'd need to see what the litmus was for denying and what the argument was for inclusion.

I would expect you to comprehend the legal difference between a religious monument, and a monument to an actual person.

I don't know of a particular legal distinction, but the law is bigger than anyone. What's your citation? Monuments are typically about a person. Sometimes, as with veterans' monuments, about a group of people sharing a defining characteristic. In this case the belief in a number of foundational values, principles, that profoundly influenced the formation of our compact, as their disproportionate sacrifices influenced and saw to its survival.

Or we can assume that it is. You cite issues where legal opinions have changed, I cite issues where they haven't. Apparently which category you put this in depends on the outcome you're wishing for.

My point being that all I need is the exception and you can't have a rule, only an average. At that point, I invoked my understanding of the law and offered that foundational issues of right are less often subject to upheaval absent extraordinary events.

Not sure what the "it" refers to in your second sentence.

The same in both cases, the subject of the quote, atheism.

Sorry, I don't see that at all. The fact remains, the state of Oklahoma erected a monument of Christian laws on public property, and then denied other religious viewpoints the same access.

And my response would be that erecting a tomb for the U.S. Grant doesn't entitle every officer to the same recognition, though some may have it conferred.

If that's not preferential, I have to wonder what you think "preferential" even is.

Something that carries a discernible advantage, like opportunity for employment, advancement or the like. At best you could argue status, but I don't know that any monument ever did more that reflect a status.

I kind of figured it was self-evident that a government saying "Christianity only in our public spaces" was an advantage for Christianity.

You haven't established it's saying that.

It is preferential treatment. One could say that by denying other groups the same access, the government is discriminating against them.

Stated and answered prior and in part above.

No, everything in science is provisional. We just take it for granted that many things are "settled".

No, we know what barium is, that the earth isn't flat, that the planets circle the sun, etc. All sorts of things are known. Many more seem by observation and experimentation to be more likely than not, by degree. And some, much, is unknown and the subject of informed speculation.

Let's keep it in the same context then. Your wishful appeal is no different than a southerner saying "Legal opinions change, so maybe some day I'll be able to own slaves."

No, you're off the rails by thinking that all legal considerations are subject to alteration or to the same degree. Slavery took a Civil War to decide after the Court botched it and the legislature established an evil practice. This is a very different animal.

 

[jgarden]

To me, it is a remote unrelated example. Ronald Reagan embraced and steered government toward Christian unity. It was very unifying, even for the nonChristian. The fear-mongering is misplaced and unfounded, as well as wrong-headed imho.

- remote

- unrelated

- fear-mongering

- misplaced

- unfounded

- wrong-headed

If the Founding Fathers agreed with "Lon's" assessment, then why did they make such a concerted effort to ensure that there would be no state-sponsored Church in America.

As for Ronald Reagan's "religious beliefs," they are largely the product of the wishful thinking of conservative Christians, given that according to Donald his Chief of Staff, the President's schedule had to be coordinated under the direction of an astrologer. The Reagans rarely attended Church.

Reagan scheduled his inauguration as Governor of California in January 1967 to take place at 12:10 A.M. (10 minutes after midnight), an extremely odd time that was deliberately designed to take advantage of favorable astrological "portents."

The Reagans' interest in astrology was confirmed by Marvin Fitzwater, the President's Press Secretary and the couple were close friends with Carroll Righter, a well known California astrologer.

In his 1965 autobiography, Where’s the Rest of Me?, Reagan said that he and Righter were “good friends” and that “every morning Nancy and I turn to see what he has to say about people of our respective birth signs.” It was on Righter’s advice that Reagan arranged his swearing-in as governor at the odd time of 9 minutes past midnight.

**********************************************************************

The Philadelphia Inquirer, for example, insisted that "the signing of the U.S. Soviet treaty eliminating medium-range nuclear missiles" had been signed at 1:30 p.m. on December 8, 1987 based on advise from an astrologer. In addition, many papers reported the story that Ronald Reagan had postponed his inauguration 9 minutes as governor of California till 12:10 a.m. on January 2, 1967 based on astrology calculations.

Reagan became noted as being one of the few governors to actually sign astrology legislation when on August 30, 1974, as Governor of California, he signed legislation which became Chapter 583, and added Section 50027 to the government Code, relating to astrology. The legislation removed Sacramento licensed astrologers from the category of fortune tellers, thus allowing them to practice their trade for compensation.

**********************************************************************

“I’d heard my parents [Ron and Nancy] read their horoscopes aloud at the breakfast table, but that seemed pretty innocuous to me. Occasionally, I read mine, too — usually so I can do the exact opposite of what it says. But my parents have done what the stars suggested — altered schedules, changed travel plans, stayed home, cancelled appearances.”
—Patti Davis (formerly Patricia Ann Reagan), The Way I See It

“Virtually every major move and decision the Reagans made during my time as White House Chief of Staff was cleared in advance with a woman in San Francisco who drew up horoscopes to make certain that the planets were in a favorable alignment for the enterprise.”
—Donald Regan (Reagan’s Chief of Staff), For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington

**********************************************************************

Chief of Staff Donald Regan elaborated on what it was like having to make adjustments to the President’s schedule based on the zodiac:

“Mrs. Reagan passed along her prognostications to me after conferring with [Quigley] on the telephone — she had become such a factor in my work, and in the highest affairs of the nation, that at one point I kept a color-coded calendar on my desk (numerals highlighted in green ink for “good” days, red for “bad” days, yellow for “iffy” days) as an aid to remembering when it was propitious to move the President of the United States from one place to another, or schedule him to speak in public, or commence negotiations with a foreign power.”
—Donald Regan, For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington

**********************************************************************

“According to a list provided by Mrs. Reagan to [scheduling aide] Bill Henkel, [Quigley] had made the following prohibitions based on her reading of the President’s horoscope:

Late Dec thru March bad
Jan 16 – 23 very bad
Jan 20 nothing outside WH — possible attempt
Feb 20 – 26 be careful
March 7 – 14 bad period
March 10 – 14 no outside activity!
March 16 very bad
March 21 no
March 27 no
March 12 – 19 no trips exposure
March 19 – 25 no public exposure
April 3 careful
April 11 careful
April 17 careful
April 21 – 28 stay home

Obviously this list of dangerous or forbidden dates left very little latitude for scheduling.”
—Donald Regan, For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington

“The frustration of dealing with a situation in which the schedule of the President of the United States was determined by occult prognostications was very great — far greater than any other I had known in nearly forty-five years of working life.”
—Donald Regan, For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington

**********************************************************************

“Intelligence officials say the CIA went nuts when it learned the First Lady was discussing US-Soviet relations with an outsider [Joan Quigley] on non-secure lines. Some White House officials were also horrified that presidential security was being breached. And, according to former White House officials and Quigley, the astrologer was involved in everything. She picked the departure time for the Reykjavik Summit, the optimum time for signing an arms control treaty, the best time for the trip to Moscow. And, when Mrs. Reagan was upset about a controversial trip to Germany in 1985, Quigley plotted every takeoff and landing. Her scheduling for that visit to the Bitburg cemetery was so complicated that former White House aide Michael Deaver sought permission from Mrs. Reagan to talk to the astrologer directly. The President knew what was going on. Deaver told NBC News that if Mrs. Reagan wanted a schedule change, she would say, ‘I told Ronnie and that’s what Joan recommends…’ Former aides say Ronald Reagan was a man who read his horoscope and the ‘funnies’ before the rest of the paper. They say he wasn’t only indulging his wife — that the former president also believed in astrology.”
—NBC News, reported by Andrea Mitchell, 1989

“Emerging from a particularly credulous Southern California culture, Nancy and Ronald Reagan relied on an astrologer in private and public matters — unknown to the voting public. Some portion of the decision-making that influences the future of our civilization is plainly in the hands of charlatans.”
—Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

 

[Lon]

- remote

- unrelated

- fear-mongering

- misplaced

- unfounded

- wrong-headed

If the Founding Fathers agreed with "Lon's" assessment, then why did they make such a concerted effort to ensure that there would be no state-sponsored Church in America.

All were Christian at that time. Not just Christian by association, but in strong favor of it as is well recorded in their writings and what they desired as monuments. They just didn't want it to be Baptists over Quakers. That was their only restriction, they fled Europe to practice Christianity. Congress still prays before session. I believe all states still do as well.

As for Ronald Reagan's "religious beliefs," they are largely the product of the wishful thinking of conservative Christians, given that according to Donald his Chief of Staff, the President's schedule had to be coordinated under the direction of an astrologer.

Nancy was into it. Ronald complied, to a point.
Nonetheless:

Ronald Reagan on the divinity of Christ

In a March 1978 letter to a liberal Methodist minister who expressed doubts about Christ’s divinity—and accused the then future President Reagan (born 100 years ago this month) of a “limited Sunday school level theology”—Reagan responded:

Perhaps it is true that Jesus never used the word ‘Messiah’ with regard to himself (although I’m not sure that he didn’t) but in John 1, 10 and 14 he identifies himself pretty definitely and more than once. Is there really any ambiguity in his words: ‘I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me?’… In John 10 he says, ‘I am in the Father and the Father in me.’ And he makes reference to being with God, ‘before the world was,’ and sitting on the ‘right hand of God.’…
​

These and other statements he made about himself, foreclose in my opinion, any question as to his divinity. It doesn’t seem to me that he gave us any choice; either he was what he said he was or he was the world’s greatest liar. It is impossible for me to believe a liar or charlatan could have had the effect on mankind that he has had for 2000 years. We could ask, would even the greatest of liars carry his lie through the crucifixion, when a simple confession would have saved him? … Did he allow us the choice you say that you and others have made, to believe in his teachings but reject his statements about his own identity? [Note that Reagan is using C.S. Lewis’s famous ‘liar, lord or lunatic’ trilemma argument]
​

I still can't help wondering how we can explain away what to me is the greatest miracle of all and which is recorded in history. No one denies there was such a man, that he lived and that he was put to death by crucifixion. Where … is the miracle I spoke of? Well consider this and let your imagination translate the story into our own time—possibly to your own home town. A young man whose father is a carpenter grows up working in his father's shop. One day he puts down his tools and walks out of his father’s shop. He starts preaching on street corners and in the nearby countryside, walking from place to place, preaching all the while, even though he is not an ordained minister. He never gets farther than an area perhaps 100 miles wide at the most. He does this for three years. Then he is arrested, tried and convicted. There is no court of appeal, so he is executed at age 33 along with two common thieves. Those in charge of his execution roll dice to see who gets his clothing—the only possessions he has. His family cannot afford a burial place for him so he is interred in a borrowed tomb. End of story? No, this uneducated, property-less young man has, for 2,000 years, had a greater effect on the world than all the rulers, kings, emperors; all the conquerors, generals and admirals, all the scholars, scientists and philosophers who have ever lived—all of them put together. How do we explain that—unless He really was what He said He was? 1
​

-President Ronald Reagan

 

[jgarden]

1. Unlike the Carters, whom conservative Christians "threw under the political bus," the Reagans rarely attended Church.

2. Ronald Reagans stated publically in his 1965 autobiography "Where’s the Rest of Me?"that he and Carroll Righter, a well known California astrologer were “good friends” and that “every morning Nancy and I turn to see what he has to say about people of our respective birth signs.” How many true Christians are "good friends" with astrologers and read their horoscopes everyday?

3. Would a true Christian arrange for their swearing-in as Governor of California at 10 minutes past midnight on the advice of an astrologer?

4. Would a true Christian sign astrology legislation (August 30, 1974) as would elevate state licensed astrologers from the category of fortune tellers and legitimize it as a form of consulting by allowing them to practice their trade for compensation?

5. Would a true Christian, according to their daughter (Patricia Ann Reagan) alter their schedules, change travel plans, stay home and/or cancel appearances based on their daily horoscopes?

6. Would a true Christian compromise state security by discussing US-Soviet relations with a civilian outsider (Joan Quigley) on non-secure phone lines?

7. Would a true Christian president insisted that "the signing of the U.S. Soviet treaty eliminating medium-range nuclear missiles" had been signed at 1:30 p.m. on December 8, 1987 - based on the advise of their astrologer?

8. I submit that we don't really know who wrote that March 1978 letter to that liberal Methodist minister, but we do know that based on
- their daughter,
- his Presidential Chief of Staff,
- his Presidential Press Secretary,
- CIA agents
- reporters with contacts within the Reagan Administration (Andrea Mitchell had a lengthy relationship with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan whom she later married)
- other astrologers (Carroll Righter, Joan Quigley)
- and in their own autobiography that their actions were influenced by astrologers.

Conservative Christians have been sold a "bill of goods" and are now in denial when faced with the overwhelming evidence that Ronald Reagan was anything but the 1980's "poster boy" for Christianity.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/04/u...s-reagans-follow-astrology-up-to-a-point.html

http://onepercenttakers.com/astrology/

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/19/back.time/

 

[Lon]

Conservative Christians were sold a "bill of goods" and are now in denial when faced with the overwhelming evidence that Ronald Reagan was anything but the 1980's "poster boy" for Christianity.

Superstitious doesn't not erase Christianity. Was he a poster boy for Christianity? :nono: Neither was King David a poster boy for king of Israel, yet God chose him. I've read many quotes from Reagan and many of them you can 'hear' for yourself on YouTube. They were strongly Christian.

I stand behind the history that Reagan united government and America under a Christian theme that served well. Reagan was neither quite a liberal Christian nor quite a conservative, but carried elements of both and in that too, was able to unite a nation in a way that hasn't happened since. I also linked my source above, and it has an easily verifiable link to the book it was taken from.

 

[Jose Fly]

I thought the argument was precisely a historical one. I haven't read more than a general set out on it. I entered more on the larger point than the particular case, but that was my impression.

Nope. I'm assuming you're familiar with the legal concept of the "reasonable observer". The monument was just there, by itself, with no surrounding context, which means a reasonable observer would perceive it as a religious monument, rather than something to do with US history.

Not all arguments are equal or successful. So we'd need to see what the litmus was for denying and what the argument was for inclusion.

THIS ARTICLE pretty much sums it up.

I don't know of a particular legal distinction, but the law is bigger than anyone. What's your citation? Monuments are typically about a person. Sometimes, as with veterans' monuments, about a group of people sharing a defining characteristic. In this case the belief in a number of foundational values, principles, that profoundly influenced the formation of our compact, as their disproportionate sacrifices influenced and saw to its survival.

I don't follow you at all here. You seem to be arguing that if, in erecting religious monuments the government has to be inclusive of other religions, then when it erects monuments to people it is therefore mandated to erect monuments to everyone.

If that's what you're saying, I have a hard time seeing that as even worth considering.

My point being that all I need is the exception and you can't have a rule, only an average. At that point, I invoked my understanding of the law and offered that foundational issues of right are less often subject to upheaval absent extraordinary events.

Well, I suppose if you want to hold out for the legal climate to change to where the government will be allowed to promote and endorse Christianity while excluding all other religions....knock yourself out. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

The same in both cases, the subject of the quote, atheism.

Ok, so when you said, "I noted it wouldn't work to advance and wasn't in this instance advancing a religion", what exactly is the difference between advancing a religion and advancing a religious viewpoint?

And my response would be that erecting a tomb for the U.S. Grant doesn't entitle every officer to the same recognition, though some may have it conferred.

See above. Too ridiculous to bother with.

Something that carries a discernible advantage, like opportunity for employment, advancement or the like. At best you could argue status, but I don't know that any monument ever did more that reflect a status.

Exactly. Government erecting a monument to Christianity while excluding all others confers preferential status to Christianity and relegates the other faiths to second-class status. That's illegal.

You haven't established it's saying that.

Well what else do you think it says when the government erects monuments to Christianity in public spaces, while excluding all others? If that's not "Christianity only in our public spaces", what is?

No, we know what barium is, that the earth isn't flat, that the planets circle the sun, etc. All sorts of things are known. Many more seem by observation and experimentation to be more likely than not, by degree. And some, much, is unknown and the subject of informed speculation.

Here, educate yourself: CLICK HERE

No, you're off the rails by thinking that all legal considerations are subject to alteration or to the same degree. Slavery took a Civil War to decide after the Court botched it and the legislature established an evil practice. This is a very different animal.

Now wait a second. When I noted that my side of this issue has been consistently winning in court, you brought up previous court rulings regarding slavery when you responded "Why did Courts once rule people were property?". So you first brought up the "legal opinions change" concept in the context of slavery.

Yet when I flip that around and adopt the same line of reasoning and apply it to the other side of the slavery issue, suddenly it's "a different animal".

Trying to have it both ways, eh?

 

[jgarden]

Superstitious doesn't not erase Christianity. Was he a poster boy for Christianity? :nono: Neither was King David a poster boy for king of Israel, yet God chose him. I've read many quotes from Reagan and many of them you can 'hear' for yourself on YouTube. They were strongly Christian.

I stand behind the history that Reagan united government and America under a Christian theme that served well. Reagan was neither quite a liberal Christian nor quite a conservative, but carried elements of both and in that too, was able to unite a nation in a way that hasn't happened since. I also linked my source above, and it has an easily verifiable link to the book it was taken from.

Ronald Reagan had strong astrology ties before they reached the Oval Office and the Republicans, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson looked the other way and created the Reagan "myth" that had little basis in reality.

 

[Lon]

Ronald Reagan had strong astrology ties before they reached the Oval Office and the Republicans, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson looked the other way and created the Reagan "myth" that had little basis in reality.

Ronald Reagan "Others of us believe He WAS the Prince of Peace"

Were you alive and old enough to have heard his many professions of faith? I don't want to make him what he is not, I want to realize what he was/is. Whatever others thought of them, I find it no small thing that they themselves gave astrology only a passing interest grade and I heard them say that too, in interview. Quote mining isn't the only way I do research. It is very important to listen to, and read him. Their daughter isn't the best source. Their son? Better.

 

[jgarden]

Christian Conservatives Have A Very Selective Memory Of Ronald Reagan
January 20, 2012

..... contemporary conservatives continue to invoke the name and legacy of Ronald Reagan despite the fact that, in more ways than one, they reject Ronald Reagan’s governing philosophy as it was put into action between 1981 and 1989 ..... points out that when it comes to Christian conservatives in particular, memories of the Reagan Administration are highly selective

..... Reagan had courted the nascent political movement on the religious right with a spirited defense of their most cherished political issues, including promises to restore school prayer, to work against the Equal Rights Amendment, and to attack federal abortion rights, legalized just seven years before.

But once in office, the Reagan administration claimed that it first had to address the nation’s weak economy. The social agenda of Christian conservatives would have to wait. In the meantime, the White House planned to muffle their grumbling. “We want to keep the Moral Majority types so close to us they can’t move their arms,” one Reagan staffer explained to the journalist Lou Cannon.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ch...ave-a-very-selective-memory-of-ronald-reagan/

Reagan may have said all the right things at all the right times, but with the exception of economic policy and military spending, he failed to deliver on any of his promises (abortion, school prayer, gays, pornography, Supreme Court) to the Christian-Right.

 

[jgarden]

Ronald Reagan "Others of us believe He WAS the Prince of Peace"

Were you alive and old enough to have heard his many professions of faith? I don't want to make him what he is not, I want to realize what he was/is. Whatever others thought of them, I find it no small thing that they themselves gave astrology only a passing interest grade and I heard them say that too, in interview. Quote mining isn't the only way I do research. It is very important to listen to, and read him. Their daughter isn't the best source. Their son? Better.

Other than the end of equal rights legislation, tax cuts and military spending (that resulted in significant increases to the national debt), name one piece of socially conservative legislation that the Reagan Administration implemented during its 8 years?

Abortion legislation - no

School prayer legislation - no

Conservative Supreme Court appointments - Sandra Day O'Conner (no), Anthony Kennedy (no)

Anti-pornography legislation - no

Banning gays in public education - no

 

[rexlunae]

The problem with striking these symbols commemorating the foundational truth at the heart of the peoples who did most of the building and dying to establish and preserve our compact is that it isn't leveling the field. It's giving it to anti-atheists, who lacking an equivalent, desire to destroy the peace of everyone else. Who create an offense for themselves that's needless, reckless and pointlessly divisive in a way the monuments aren't and never really have been here.

I think you're selling short the legacy of secularism in this country. While it may be true that most of the people who have lived in the United States since its founding have been Christians, it's also true that at its founding, those people, many still Christians, decided that religion shouldn't be a public affair. The purpose of placing monuments like this at state buildings is not to recall the history or honor the memory of the fallen, but to preserve the primacy of Christian doctrine in the nation's political discourse. And it is anathema to the separation of church and state.

The monument is an attack on secularists, both religious and not, humanists, and atheists. If you can't see that, you're truly blind.

If the Ten Commandments offend you then you're either evil or an idiot. And that will do you much more harm (and do much more harm to others) than any monument.

Whereas I would say that the Commandments are foolish from the top on down. But the nice thing about living in a secular country is that if you like the Commandments, you're free to venerate them all you want (although it is a little strange to have a prohibition against graven images on a stone tablet with religious and political icons on it, and which itself could be viewed as one), and if you don't like them, you don't have to pay them any mind.

Suggesting that every sort of jackassery cobbled by humanists to mock religion should have equal weight and consideration is part of the problem of that crowd. It's an irrational, hostile nonsense packaged in the name of rationality and sobriety.

Humbug.

The conflict originates in the insistence of some Christians upon using the government to declare the preeminence of their religion in the public life of the nation. Stop that hostility, and there won't be a need for any mocking cobbled-together responses. It's not irrational to respond when attacked. It is, after all, minority groups that have to fight for representation and voice.

 

[ok doser]

...if you like the Commandments, you're free to venerate them all you want ....

and if you don't like them, in what way is erecting a monument to them in front of a government office "respecting the establishment of a religion"?

are atheists being forced to convert?

swear a vow of fealty to the monument?

 

[bybee]

I think you're selling short the legacy of secularism in this country. While it may be true that most of the people who have lived in the United States since its founding have been Christians, it's also true that at its founding, those people, many still Christians, decided that religion shouldn't be a public affair. The purpose of placing monuments like this at state buildings is not to recall the history or honor the memory of the fallen, but to preserve the primacy of Christian doctrine in the nation's political discourse. And it is anathema to the separation of church and state.

The monument is an attack on secularists, both religious and not, humanists, and atheists. If you can't see that, you're truly blind.



Whereas I would say that the Commandments are foolish from the top on down. But the nice thing about living in a secular country is that if you like the Commandments, you're free to venerate them all you want (although it is a little strange to have a prohibition against graven images on a stone tablet with religious and political icons on it, and which itself could be viewed as one), and if you don't like them, you don't have to pay them any mind.



The conflict originates in the insistence of some Christians upon using the government to declare the preeminence of their religion in the public life of the nation. Stop that hostility, and there won't be a need for any mocking cobbled-together responses. It's not irrational to respond when attacked. It is, after all, minority groups that have to fight for representation and voice.

What, may I ask, do you see as the harm in a stone engraved with a dictum almost as old as civilization intended to promote peaceful existance amongst people? It is a symbol important to the majority of people in a community with only good intentions involved. It doesn't advocate a given religion or church.
Yet atheists, a minority in the community get to superimpose their strident voices over the majority?

 

[PureX]

What, may I ask, do you see as the harm in a stone engraved with a dictum almost as old as civilization intended to promote peaceful existance amongst people?

That is not the intent of placing these religious monuments in public places.

It is a symbol important to the majority of people in a community with only good intentions involved. It doesn't advocate a given religion or church.

These public monuments to religion are exactly intended to advocate for that religion.

Yet atheists, a minority in the community get to superimpose their strident voices over the majority?

Yes. That's one of the essential principals of our constitutional democracy: that the majority does not get to subvert the rights of individuals, or minorities.

How do you not understand the value and importance this principal?

 

[gcthomas]

What, may I ask, do you see as the harm in a stone engraved with a dictum almost as old as civilization intended to promote peaceful existance amongst people?

If you wanted something inclusive, and from much closer to the dawn of civilisation, you'd be putting up a stone with the Golden Rule engraved on it. It is incorporated into dozens of religions, is thoroughly humanist, and entirely non contentious, as well as probably being thousands of years older than the Ten Commandments.

But that wouldn't support the tyranny of the majority that you are after, would it?

 

[bybee]

If you wanted something inclusive, and from much closer to the dawn of civilisation, you'd be putting up a stone with the Golden Rule engraved on it. It is incorporated into dozens of religions, is thoroughly humanist, and entirely non contentious, as well as probably being thousands of years older than the Ten Commandments.

But that wouldn't support the tyranny of the majority that you are after, would it?

That is a wonderful idea! I wish I would have thought of it.

 

[bybee]

That is not the intent of placing these religious monuments in public places.
These public monuments to religion are exactly intended to advocate for that religion.
Yes. That's one of the essential principals of our constitutional democracy: that the majority does not get to subvert the rights of individuals, or minorities.

How do you not understand the value and importance this principal?

To "advocate" is not at all the same as to "impose".