Biblical verses removed from Grand Canyon

[VelvetBlade]

Biblical verses removed from Grand Canyon

Monday, July 14, 2003 Posted: 10:07 PM EDT (0207 GMT)
PHOENIX, Arizona (Reuters) -- After more than three decades at the Grand Canyon, three bronze plaques inscribed with biblical passages have been removed by U.S. park officials over concern that the religious messages violate the U.S. Constitution, officials said Monday.
Officials said they had no choice but to remove the plaques from three popular spots at the majestic canyon's busy South Rim after an inquiry was made by the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"They are religious plaques on federal buildings and that's not allowed based on the law," said Maureen Oltrogge, a Grand Canyon National Park spokeswoman.
The plaques are inscribed with passages from the Book of Psalms, specifically, by chapter and verse 68:4, 66:4 and 104.24. The last verse, in the King James Version of the Bible, reads: "O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches."
The plaques will be returned this week to their owners, the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary in Phoenix, Oltrogge said. The signs were taken out last week.
A statement from the religious group expressed sadness at the decision on the plaques, which they said were created to honor God for the crimson-hued showpiece in northern Arizona that attracts nearly 5 million visitors a year.


Full Article here
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/14/life.grandcanyon.reut/index.html

[kblackthorne]

While I feel for the Sisterhood, understanding how imporant this was to them, surely God can perceive their thanks without the plaques?

[Xeen]

That's irksome. Why can't these people just leave these things alone?

[Morrighana]

I would've left them. The passage you quoted is beautiful, regardless of which God it refers to.

[jcldragon]

Only 30 years? The Grand Canyon probably hadn't noticed that they were there yet...

[jelly.belly]

Will they change the money next? I mean it reads: "In God we trust" doesn't it? :D Don't mind me, I'm Canadian, just wondering... :D

[Pesha]

sometimes the ACLU takes things way too far. What harm is it for this group of nuns to want to honour their beliefs and the beauty of the Grand Canyon.

BB

D'S...also known as......

[WillowSageheart]

How silly to take that down! I have never been there, but I'm sure if I could see the beauty there I would want to pay tribute to my dieties for it. Like it or not, this country was founded on Christianity. It is part of our culture and heritage, and taking things like this down, or changing our pledge is just ridiculous. You don't have to be Christian to appreciate some of the things it has brought to our heritage.

[Theres]

i agree that the words are beautiful, regardless of the context. and i'd of had no problem with them remaining at this site.

but the ACLU didn't go too far here.
one must realise that the American justice system is a game, and lawyers are the players. and the game has rules. i wish it were not like this, but this game is deep-rooted in our system of government.
so, in order for the ACLU to have any teeth in situations like, oh let's say, this type of plaque being mounted on a courthouse (for instance) where it clearly does NOT belong, precedents like this must be maintained.
unfortunate for the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, for sure. and perhaps for all the visitors to the park (which is an amazing place!).
the ACLU does much more good than it does harm.

and yes, "In God We Trust" should absolutely be removed from our money!

[WillowSageheart]

Ok, I agree with you. What I don't understand, if they were on government buildings - and I DO believe in separating religion from state - why not put them somewhere else in the park?

[Partly Cloudy]

I guess I understand the predecent thing but I don't really see what all the fuss is about- its just a plaque with a nice-sounding verse, it isn't offending anyone (or if it is, it shouldn't be), it's not discriminatory and it's not causing harm- what's the problem? I guess if it's thought that the plaque is in the wrong place, you can move it, but sending it back is a bit harsh.

Why do you want 'in god we trust' removed from the money, btw?

~Partly Cloudy

[Tiana_Ecarias]

I don't think that there is really a problem, for the majority of people. There are the few who WOULD be offended by those plaques being there(I know of one, she's a Mormon, and she left the park in a rage because of those plaques.)

And, those few can be really noisy, and for the ACLU to keep it's footing to be able to remove similar things from State buildings, and from schools, it has to remove those plaques in this case, even though they weren't really a problem.

[~*Ginger*~]

hmmmmm, well I see nothing wrong with there being a plaque or any type of monument anywhere....
At least it was hung somewhere, what was it hurting? At least it's better than graffiti!

i do have a beef however about the garbage throw and strewn here and there upon this land, starting with those awful :strike: 'vote for me' signs along every highway and byway, and the majority of them just let there to further dirty up our world!

Yes, the Grand Canyon is a breathtaking place.

As far as what's written on the $ I could really care less, just wish I had some!

[Xander67]

another classic example of Ignorance ...

they werent harming no one for 30 years so why now?

[~*Ginger*~]

'The times, they are a changing'

* I have no idea who to acknowledge that comment to, but someone other than me came up with it*

[Phoenix Blue]

another classic example of Ignorance ...

they werent harming no one for 30 years so why now?
Just because a cancer doesn't harm you for the first 30 years, does that mean you want to keep it in your system for the next 30?

The Bill of Rights and court precedent dictate that government money should not be spent on sectarian religious expression. The plaques may not be offensive in and of themselves--but the fact that taxpayers paid for it is something I find deeply offensive.

The alternative would have been to litter the monument with so many plaques that you would have had a hard time appreciating the Canyon. The ACLU is not interested in suppressing religious expression--they're interested in supporting equal religious expression for everyone.

If you don't like it, ask yourself: Do you think Satanists would have been allowed to mount a plaque at the site? Or Pagans? If not, why should Christians be allowed special privileges?

[Amethyst Rose]

The plaques may not be offensive in and of themselves--but the fact that taxpayers paid for it is something I find deeply offensive.


Maybe I missunderstood, but weren't the plaques donated by the Sisterhood? If that's the case, then taxpayers didn't pay for anything, except for maybe cleaning costs....

[Ben Trismegistus]

These particular plaques may not have been that offensive to non-Christians, but in order for a rule to have any legitimacy, it has to be enforced across the board.

Allowing the plaques to remain would be a short step away from allowing the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools.

[VelvetBlade]

There have been many debates like this that I've seen recently..especially near Chrristmas when groups want to display a creche on the town hall lawn or something of that nature. But I still feel that if that is allowed than every single religious denomination and non religious denomination has the right to have some type of representation of their belief or non belief. I guess what you do in your own yard is your business, but when it's a town, city, state, fed land or landmark...you have to do it for all or none.....

[Kaylara]

and yes, "In God We Trust" should absolutely be removed from our money!

I know that this is a federal offense, but there was a movement a while ago that crossed out the "In God We Trust" on any paper currency that passed through their hands in protest. (And I don't mean the x-ing out of God and inserting Goddess like some people I know were doing... That's just as bad.)

I also think that "In God We Trust" should be removed from our currency, the pledge of alleigence, etc.

[Adam Of Avalon]

The situation is easily seen both ways. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Christians expressing their appreciation to their god. As long as the plaque doesn't read: "We, God's wives, claim this territory in the name of Christian fundamentalism", they shouldn't be taken down. But Ben also has a point. Other religious sects may not have been granted the same freedom those nuns enjoyed for thirty years. And those plaques can be interpreted as a springboard for more biblical verses posted in other public places, not the least of which are schools.

My own personal opinion? This world gets smaller every day. Religions are constantly stepping on each others' toes in an effort to give themselves more room. In order to live in such close quarters, we all have to be a little more tolerant. I know it seems that sometimes as the underdog, we feel we've been plenty tolerant and giving the majority more room will only hinder us. But give it time. Let the nuns have their plaques.

And absolutely, separation of church and state all the way!

[Xentor]

Yeah, religious tolerance. Let's all be intolerant of christianity.

Seriously. Christianity as a strong base in my country. Especially the province I happen to live in, has crucifixes on every street corner. No, there's no place for a Buddha statue or for a pentagram. It's Jesus everywhere you look.

OTAH, muslim mosques are built everywhere as well. Every major town has at least one mosque. Paganism and Wicca are only found in New Age stores.

Stepping on each other's toes might be the first step towards equality. Equilibrium must be found. Thus the scales swing this way first, that way next.

[WandererInGray]

Yeah, religious tolerance. Let's all be intolerant of christianity.

Gawd, I'm so tired of this argument. Yes, the poor persecuted Christians...it's so very intolerant of the ALCU to stick by the law and protest an obvious display of one religious belief upon a natural monument that belongs to ALL of us.

Xentor - does the Netherlands have an amendment or goverment law of some kind guarenteeing the separation of church and state? If they don't...then there's not much to do be done.
But here in America, we have guarentees against this sort of thing.

[AmbivalentMirage]

I am a very hopeful person... I even have real hopes of a one-day utopia on the planet we call Earth...

But as long as the archaic and useless documents we call the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights exist, there will be stupid stunts like this. In actuality, there needs to be FAR clearer documentation of what is and is not acceptable. If the ACLU is working for religious tolerance across the board, then why didn't they suggest a plaque NEXT to it from some other religion?

If you'd like to take on a challenge, try getting something taken out of your state constitution. Many states have provisions within their constitutions that allows for only Christians to take public office. I've seen plenty of documentaries on the subject.

I'm not doing some bleeing-heart act for the Christians... the Ten Commandments are Jewish, for goodness's sake! This might upset some people, but I think that if we're going to go about tearing down harmless signs then public school students shouldn't be allowed to wear harmless pentacles. Why? Well, tax money (coming through the government) pays for the education (and frequently food) of students in public school. Therefor, students are only there by funding of the government...doesn't that seem a little unfair to you? At that rate, then we shouldn't allow stars of david or crosses either.

You see, if we start taking down everything that can and will offend/upset people, we're going to have nothing left. I find lots of buildings offensive for their destruction of nature. Somehow, I don't think I have a case to have my library torn down so I can see the sunset... or my neighbor's balcony.

I'm probably rambling... but what was the big deal? Was anyone in here dying from the existence of those signs? No. Are Christians dying from the existence of pentacles on people? No. Are Moslems dying from Moslems building large mosques? No. Removing those plaques wasn't justice, it was just another cop out by our government, instead of forcing people to learn to ACCEPT each other. :)

[Kaylara]

No. Removing those plaques wasn't justice, it was just another cop out by our government, instead of forcing people to learn to ACCEPT each other. :)

The problem with that is that is you CAN'T force people to accept other people. I actually am a very open person, however, not everyone responds to differences the way I do, and for most people difference is a scary thing. You can only make yourself accept other people, and their beliefs/practices. You can teach your children the same. But you can't force anyone else to believe anything, and having a government mandate acceptence is a frightening thought. I think that if there is not equal access for religions when it comes to displays on government/public property that no religion should have that access...

[jelly.belly]

This might upset some people, but I think that if we're going to go about tearing down harmless signs then public school students shouldn't be allowed to wear harmless pentacles.

We're not allowed to wear pentacles in my school... They say it is a symbol of Satanism, which prones violence, and blah blah blah... :rolleyes: But anyone can wear a cross or a star of David... Personally I find that offensive, that I can't wear something that represents my religion if everyone else can! The thing is, as beautiful as the verses might be, some people might think it offesive because it is religious passage... The fact that it mentions God might also be a source of frustration for the people who don't believe that God. Since it's a public ground, I think they were right to take them down, because some people might think it "promotes" Christianity or other religions that follow the ten commandments... So, all religions should be equally looked at here and no religion should have an advantage... Am I making any sense here?

[Ben Trismegistus]

But as long as the archaic and useless documents we call the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights exist, there will be stupid stunts like this. In actuality, there needs to be FAR clearer documentation of what is and is not acceptable. If the ACLU is working for religious tolerance across the board, then why didn't they suggest a plaque NEXT to it from some other religion?

Because it's much easier to require them to take down the plaques than to require plaques representing ALL the world religions. That would just be silly. Besides, it's a national monument - it's not the place for that sort of thing.

And what's wrong with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights? Do you have something wrong with freedom of religion or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?


If you'd like to take on a challenge, try getting something taken out of your state constitution. Many states have provisions within their constitutions that allows for only Christians to take public office. I've seen plenty of documentaries on the subject.

Um, I highly doubt that. And even if it's true, I doubt that anyone pays attention to those statutes.


I'm not doing some bleeing-heart act for the Christians... the Ten Commandments are Jewish, for goodness's sake! This might upset some people, but I think that if we're going to go about tearing down harmless signs then public school students shouldn't be allowed to wear harmless pentacles.

Those are two different issues. Wearing a pentacle (or a cross or a Star of David) is a personal expression of one's religion. Posting the Ten Commendments in school is an endorsement by the Board of Education (a governmental department) of what is said in the Commandments. And frankly, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" is not something I want our government to endorse.


You see, if we start taking down everything that can and will offend/upset people, we're going to have nothing left. I find lots of buildings offensive for their destruction of nature. Somehow, I don't think I have a case to have my library torn down so I can see the sunset... or my neighbor's balcony.

We're not talking about "everything that can and will offend/upset people". This is a specific discussion about a specific issue: religious statements on government property. And it's a no-no, simple as that.


I'm probably rambling... but what was the big deal? Was anyone in here dying from the existence of those signs? No. Are Christians dying from the existence of pentacles on people? No. Are Moslems dying from Moslems building large mosques? No. Removing those plaques wasn't justice, it was just another cop out by our government, instead of forcing people to learn to ACCEPT each other. :)

If you say so. In my opinion, taking down those signs was a very important step towards respecting ALL American citizens, not just those of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.

[WandererInGray]

Just a note to Ambivalent Mirage.....

That archaic and useless document known as the Bill of Rights? It's what gives you the right to spew all that nonsense you just did and not be taken away by the government for it.

[Theres]

... Removing those plaques wasn't justice, it was just another cop out by our government, instead of forcing people to learn to ACCEPT each other. :)

so you're saying that removal of those plaques by the government was unacceptable, but the government "forcing" people into a particular mindset or course of action is okay?

incredible!

[ckynes1968]

But couldn't some argue that this is merely quoting from a book? What if it was a phrase from a Robert Frost poem? That could be on a plaque too.

[Ben Trismegistus]

A religious book. It's a big difference.

Nobody believes that Robert Frost poems came directly from God.

[AmbivalentMirage]

Just a note to Ambivalent Mirage.....

That archaic and useless document known as the Bill of Rights? It's what gives you the right to spew all that nonsense you just did and not be taken away by the government for it.

Nonsense, eh? I'm quite flattered. At least I now know I have the legal right to be stupid. (and apparently wrong...)


Ben Trismegistus] A religious book. It's a big difference.

Nobody believes that Robert Frost poems came directly from God.[/font]

No, but Robert Frost was G-d's cousin or something... dayum that man was brilliant...

*shrugs* Whatever. My fault for responding. *wanders off to other threads*

[Danustouch]

I took a while to think before I posted in this thread, because my feelings were quite uncertain..... but..now that i've had time to mull this over.....

I agree that it is a lovely verse, and I would LIKE It if they had been able to stay there. HOWEVER...I also see Greenmans point. It's a matter of precidence. In court cases, when a person brings a matter before a judge, they will call into testimony similar things found elsewhere. So..if they wanted to put the ten commandments on a Highschool doorway, or a verse saying "There is only One God " or anything of the like, they could say "Well..you allowed religious verses to stay on the Grand Canyon monument....".

My IDEAL solution, would be that all religions/paths would be represented. If they could have opened the park, for people to donate placques to, representative of each religion, I think that would have made the most beautiful monument of all, in addition to the natural splendor of the place itsself. But..we know what would happen, if that were to occur..the petty squabbling, would never end. X, Denomination of Christianity, might refuse to visit the monument because X religion was represented. X mr. Pagan might refuse to visit the Monument, because the plague chosen to represent X denomination of Christianity, said something they didn't agree with. Don't laugh..human beings really CAN be that petty.

So..because we do not live in an ideal world, I think the placques had to be removed. Sadly so. I would have liked it if they could stay. However, I feel as Greenman feels. It is a sad causualty to the battle for religious equality, and separation of church and state...

[Koehnae]

I understand the reasoning for removing them, but I disagree with it being done. I think there is a place for everyone's religion... or lack thereof. There needs to be a higher level of acceptance of each other's faith in this country.

[Xentor]

So what's a government to do? Banish all possible forms of religious presentations on public property? Or open up that public property for all possible religions to present themselves?

It's both unpractical. People should wise up. The government should teach religious tolerance.

To WandererInGray: yes, the Netherlands also have the separation between state and church in their laws. However, the state religion is Protestant (I don't know which one, either Calvin or Luther), and our queen (why does a democracy have a queen anyway?) thanks her God in her yearly public address.

I was fortunate enough to have frequented a high school that did preach religious tolerance. It's a catholic school, which means at least some of the classes are about catholic religion. Our teacher however thought is wise to teach us about religions all over the world. Very nice.

Now, if religion would be banished from all public property, what kind of effect would that have on Dutch catholic schools? None. There's a law that grants them the right to exist. It would however effect the public (non-catholic) schools, as they wouldn't be allowed to teach protestantism anymore. That would be discrimination as well.

I guess there are no crucifixes in public places in the USA?

[Danustouch]

Ummmm..nope. I think that the only exceptions, are a few places that have the star of david, and a creche up on town property in the US. But even those are being removed often...

[Xentor]

In that case I can totally understand the plaque removal. (Pun intended ;) )

[Mistiblue]

How silly to take that down! I have never been there, but I'm sure if I could see the beauty there I would want to pay tribute to my dieties for it. Like it or not, this country was founded on Christianity. It is part of our culture and heritage, and taking things like this down, or changing our pledge is just ridiculous. You don't have to be Christian to appreciate some of the things it has brought to our heritage.
I wasn't going to step into this as I can see there are some strong feelings on all sides and there's really nothing we can do about it. However I hear this quote all the time that "our country was founded on Christianity". Not to step on any toes here, but Actually it was founded by the Native Americans, even though they didn't last long once the country was invaded by Christians. Not intended as a slam,..just a fact.

[~*Ginger*~]

speaking of money...
isn't the majority of 'old coins' and even some of the paper money from other lands all covered with god/goddeses, kings and queens, rulers and other people?

What's the difference?

[Xentor]

Different places, different morals.

The Dutch guilder for a long time had "God zij met ons" (In god we trust) engraved on its side.

The Euro coins (at least the ones I've seen) have nothing of the sort. Most also don't have deities depicted. Something changed, that's for sure.

[VelvetBlade]

Seeing the strong opposing feelings on the issue of the plaques makes me think of another issue. When you go to court, you are sworn in....with your hand on a bible and you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth...so help you god. What are the thoughts on this ??

~AW

[Theres]

i don't believe that this is still required in the US, though it might be a State to State issue.
you must raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth, but i don't think you need put your left hand on the bible, nor swear 'to God'.

[WynterWynd]

The last time I had to go to court (California) you most certainly did have to put your hand on the bible and swerar to 'god'.

[WillowSageheart]

I wasn't going to step into this as I can see there are some strong feelings on all sides and there's really nothing we can do about it. However I hear this quote all the time that "our country was founded on Christianity". Not to step on any toes here, but Actually it was founded by the Native Americans, even though they didn't last long once the country was invaded by Christians. Not intended as a slam,..just a fact.

Not taken as a slam at all, and what can I say, when you're right, you're right. I hadn't even thought about that at all... never once, and now that you have put it right in my face, I can't help but feel a little ashamed for NOT thinking about that. Thank you.

BTW, last time I was in court here, they wanted me to do the bible thing and I refused to do it. I told them I would agree to tell the truth but would absolutely NOT swear on the bible. They said ok and left out that part and that was the end of it.

[Ben Trismegistus]

*shrugs* Whatever. My fault for responding. *wanders off to other threads*

Sorry dude. It's a debate. I'm sorry if you expected total agreement.


My IDEAL solution, would be that all religions/paths would be represented. If they could have opened the park, for people to donate placques to, representative of each religion, I think that would have made the most beautiful monument of all, in addition to the natural splendor of the place itsself. But..we know what would happen, if that were to occur..the petty squabbling, would never end. X, Denomination of Christianity, might refuse to visit the monument because X religion was represented. X mr. Pagan might refuse to visit the Monument, because the plague chosen to represent X denomination of Christianity, said something they didn't agree with. Don't laugh..human beings really CAN be that petty.

I understand your reasoning behind this idea, but what about the atheists? Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion, and it seem unfair for atheists who simply want to visit a beautiful monument to have to be subject to messages from not ONE, but EVERY religion.

Frankly, I don't think that anyone would *refuse* to visit the Canyon because of any religious messages (although can you imagine the uproar of Christian groups if the local coven posted a plaque with the Charge of the Goddess or something?), but I still believe that it's a national monument which has absolutely nothing to do with religion, except insofar as it applies to YOU PERSONALLY.

[Danustouch]

Hmmmm...I can see your point, too Ben. But then, the Atheists would be free to donate a placque stating that Man has made many wonders..yadda yadda. Or that "Nature" in general has made many wonders..yadda yadda. Or,not donate anything at all, as a statement.

As for religion having no place in a "Public Place"...this is what it comes down to for me. Individuals carry with them their religious ideals, no matter where they go. As a for instance, does anybody raise an eyebrow when they visit the Vietnam War Memorial, and see prayers, crosses, etc, left at the memorial? Or any other, for that matter. And how about all the public museums, which desplay religious art, or artifacts, or poetry, etc? I'm sure the Library of Congress hosts many books with religious themes. This is just playing devils advocate here, but....instead of having those religious placques posted all over the park, where they would have to be seen by anyone touring the park, why not create a little "Museum" where people could leave their personal reccollections, or thoughts on the Grand Canyon...including poems they have written about it, inspirational verses or writings that came to mind while visiting it. They could have those placques in the museum...along with ANY other religions, or NO religions. An Atheist could just as easily leave something saying.."Yeah..I took a date here on my first visit, and we kissed, and then we wound up getting married"..as HIS personal reflection on the park.......

I guess what I am saying, is that I don't see anything wrong with allowing people a place to display their thoughts on how magnificent the park is....the only problem I see, is when it is exclusive to one religion, or religion in general.

[Theres]

everybody gets a plaque!

i'm reminded of a poem by Ogden Nash (i think)...
"I think that i shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Indeed, lest all the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all!"

besides, anyone who seeks God (any God) shouldn't be reading plaques when there's the frickin' Grand Canyon staring right at you! :)

[WynterWynd]

besides, anyone who seeks God (any God) shouldn't be reading plaques when there's the frickin' Grand Canyon staring right at you! :)

I totally agree with that Greenman!!!

[ckynes1968]

besides, anyone who seeks God (any God) shouldn't be reading plaques when there's the frickin' Grand Canyon staring right at you! :)


yup!

[~ Monk ~]

besides, anyone who seeks God (any God) shouldn't be reading plaques when there's the frickin' Grand Canyon staring right at you! :)

:fpraiseyo

I agree with the decision to remove the plaques. If you want to express awe, praise, gratitude etc. to your God/dess(s) in plaque form, do it in your own home or backyard. If you're in a public place...why not simply say a prayer? :hmmmmm:

[Ben Trismegistus]

I guess what I am saying, is that I don't see anything wrong with allowing people a place to display their thoughts on how magnificent the park is....the only problem I see, is when it is exclusive to one religion, or religion in general.

Again, I understand your reasoning, and perhaps I'm just not being clear in my arguments.

I have no problem whatsoever with personal expressions of one's religion -- like, as you said, the many people who have left crosses, prayers, etc. at the Vietnam Memorial. One of the things that makes this a great country (in theory) is that everyone is free to practice and express their personal religion in any way that they see fit, provided that they do not impinge upon the religious rights of others.

What I do have a problem with is state-sanctioned expressions of religion -- as in the official plaques at the Grand Canyon, or the posting of the Ten Commendments at a school or courthouse. When a religious statement is *officially* placed on a government site, it implies that that statement is an expression of the government's religion. Does that make sense?

And frankly, I believe that there are far too many religions in this country for each one to get "equal time" - so best just to separate religion from government.

[WandererInGray]

Just a quick note.....the plaques were on Federal buildings...not just stuck in the ground at the Grand Canyon. That's why the ACLU stepped in.

Like Ben said...it's not about personal expression, but governmental endorsement. *shrugs* Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

[LightDancer]

Like it or not, this country was founded on Christianity. It is part of our culture and heritage, and taking things like this down, or changing our pledge is just ridiculous. You don't have to be Christian to appreciate some of the things it has brought to our heritage.

Actually the founding fathers were in the majority Free Thinkers, Deist, and Unitarians. They based their government on logic and reason. A theocracy is what they were trying to avoid when they left England.

B*B
Jamie

[Ben Trismegistus]

Actually the founding fathers were in the majority Free Thinkers, Deist, and Unitarians. They based their government on logic and reason. A theocracy is what they were trying to avoid when they left England.

Well said, Jamie.

I hadn't noticed the original quote or I would've jumped on it myself. :)

[Xentor]

Backing up into swearing unto God when in court: unless you don't believe in any god at all, what's wrong with swearing unto God? It's probably not *their* god you're appealing to, but it's a god anyway. How many wiccans invoke one or more gods in their spells? So why not swear to say the truth, so help you (your) god?

And as far as I'm concerned, I'd simply dismiss it as an archaic ritual. My word should be good enough, so help me ME.

[Theres]

Actually the founding fathers were in the majority Free Thinkers, Deist, and Unitarians. They based their government on logic and reason. A theocracy is what they were trying to avoid when they left England.

absolutely right, despite what the Christo-revisionists would have you think!
for some interesting quotes from the men who built our country, see my post in this thread...

http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?threadid=12103&highlight=abraham+lincoln

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, why don't they put them up on some sort of nice boards with the owner name on it, and stick em in the ground. Then they could stay right? I dunno...

If I was christian, I would miss em. It just speaks to how huge and beautiful the grand canyone is.
From the other link:


cool! i bookmarked both of those sites. here's a few more quotes from men wiser than those who have inherited their real-estate...

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty Gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My mind is my own church." - Thomas Paine

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." - George Washington

these are from the book 'Salvation For Sale' by Gerard Thomas Straub.

pretty cool guys, those founding fathers!





Why do people assume that US is built on christian doctrine? Just because of the puritans coming around first? I don't know much about american history-being canadian

[WynterWynd]

Its not so much being made to swear to God, because they don't know what's in my mind at the time I swear. Its being made to swear upon their book, as it is more than just wiccan/pagans that don't follow or believe in that book.

[Eos of the Eons]

Its not so much being made to swear to God, because they don't know what's in my mind at the time I swear. Its being made to swear upon their book, as it is more than just wiccan/pagans that don't follow or believe in that book.
Yes,
I've thought of that too. If atheists who are not so moral, but swear upon the bible, then does that mean it doesn't apply to them and they can lie all they want to? They swear upon something they don't believe in, is that like crossing your fingers behind your back?

I'm atheist, and I wonder how much my swearing is worth upon the bible? I wouldn't lie or anything, but the swearing doesn't seem to be holding me to anything. I should be made to sign a contract stating that I won't lie or something, I figure, right? I'm not even that sure why people swear upon the bible anyway. It's a promise right? Signing something seems more like I'm promising and mean it.

[Danustouch]

Just a quick note.....the plaques were on Federal buildings...not just stuck in the ground at the Grand Canyon. That's why the ACLU stepped in.

Okay...wanderer cleared something up for me. I do agree they should be taken off the federal buildings. However, I DO hope that the park finds alternate arrangements, such as a privately funded, non denominational "board" or "museum" or something, where those placques, and any other religious testimonies to the beauty of the park can be placed. I misunderstood.

[Theres]

...I should be made to sign a contract stating that I won't lie or something, I figure, right? I'm not even that sure why people swear upon the bible anyway. It's a promise right? Signing something seems more like I'm promising and mean it.

and i'm an anarchist, so what good would signing that contract be to me? my fingers are behind my political back just as much as yours would be behind your religious back.
"i swear to tell the truth...", that's all that is required. it doesn't need to be qualified through anybody elses moral filter.

(we really do have two threads going here, don't we?)

[Danustouch]

I went to court this spring, and only had to say "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". And that was all..No "Help me God" no "Bible". For those of you who are concerned about having to take an oath worded with the "God" phrase, or on a bible, perhaps it would be wise for you to check into your state statutes, and find out what provisions are made/can be made. If there are none, perhaps petition for a change?

[Partly Cloudy]

I don't really see how it matters. Maybe some would see it as unfair but in my opinion, as long as you are swearing to tell the truth it shouldn't make it any less real whatever you're swearing on. For me, I would take a promise just as seriously if it had 'so help me god' in it and my hand was on a bible as if it said nothing after it at all. I would still be promising to tell the truth, after all.

However, I can see how it might seem offensive to have to swear with your hand on someone elses' religious text, that's fair enough.

~Partly Cloudy

[WynterWynd]

Yes,
I've thought of that too. If atheists who are not so moral, but swear upon the bible, then does that mean it doesn't apply to them and they can lie all they want to? They swear upon something they don't believe in, is that like crossing your fingers behind your back?

I'm atheist, and I wonder how much my swearing is worth upon the bible? I wouldn't lie or anything, but the swearing doesn't seem to be holding me to anything. I should be made to sign a contract stating that I won't lie or something, I figure, right? I'm not even that sure why people swear upon the bible anyway. It's a promise right? Signing something seems more like I'm promising and mean it.

I think making anyone who goes to court previously sign (before you go in) an agreement to tell the truth would be a better deal...its done with, out of the way and they can get on with the court proceedure. No bible, no to their 'god'.

as far as the plaques go on the Grand Canyon.....I go to National Monuments to see the monument, the natural splendor. I can't truley say that I would have given that plaque a second thought.

There is a plaque in a natural perserved part of Sequoia Park thats stats how the original land owner didn't have the heart to harm one of Gods greatest creations, she she (the owner) donated that land to the city to be used as a park, so that everyone could enjoy the beauty of Her creation.

I would hope that the ACLU stays out of this forest and never finds this plaque offensive.

[Pesha]

In Los Angeles which was my home on and off for alot of my years, there is the Lubavitch Orthodox Jewish group. Every year they build a big Manorah at Hanukka time and hold a public celebration. A group of "concerned citizens" got together and petitioned the city of Beverly Hills, where the celebtration always took place and demanded that it not go on. Reason...."We are a nation based and founded on xianity....."

Also in L.A. A group of again, yes oh yes, concerned citizens pettioned the city gov, to take down a Manorah from the city hall rotunda, because....ah ha yes you guessed it......."we are a xian nation". And it is wrong to promote anything that goes against the lord jc.

The ACLU got into the act on behalf of the.....concerned citizens, stating in a law suit they filed that the Lubavitchers had ample places to celebrate their religion and did not need to do so in public because.....it interefered with the xian celebration of xmas andwas forcing others to see something they might not like to deal with.. Oh right a group of black coated long bearded Hassidic jews dancing around and celebrating a great miracle....is offensive....NOT! The State Supreme court over turned the suit saying that a Manorah infringed on no one.

A group of nuns as I have previously posted, wanted to honour their lord with a plaque. It hurts no one.....don't look at it if it bothers you. And people please let all the concerned citizens of this world please rememeber.......The USA is made up of many religious beliefs, no one group is "the group". The ACLU needs to begone in this case.

One last comment.....I have never sworn an oath on a bible. And even when I joined the Army. I made it clear that I would not, did not swear oaths and the military accepted this and allowed me to take an alternate way according to my beleifs. Now days Wicca is recognised by the military as a legal religion and has chaplins to serve their members.

BB

D'D...also known as...

[Eos of the Eons]

and i'm an anarchist, so what good would signing that contract be to me? my fingers are behind my political back just as much as yours would be behind your religious back.
"i swear to tell the truth...", that's all that is required. it doesn't need to be qualified through anybody elses moral filter.

(we really do have two threads going here, don't we?)

I confused???? I'm not religious. I said I was atheist in that post. I won't be crossing my fingers ever, but it just seems like I could if I'm swearing on something that I don't find binding.

A contract would be binding.

[materra]

They have been returned to the park until further investigation. See attached.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0724canyonplaques24.html