U.S. Senate candidate E.W. Jackson weighs in on Giles County Ten Commandments case
E.W. Jackson stops at a billboard on the way to his news conference. Photo by Greg Aldridge, provided by the Jackson campaign.
Laurence Hammack, who has been covering the legal arguments over posting the 10 Commandments in a Giles County public school, today spoke to Republican U.S. Senate candidate E.W. Jackson after a news conference about the issue.
Hammack reports:
The legal issue of whether a copy of the Ten Commandments should be posted in a Giles County school became a political one today.
Chesapeake minister E.W. Jackson, who is seeking the Republican nomination to run for a U.S. Senate seat in Virginia, held a news conference this afternoon in Pearisburg to offer his views on the dispute.
Jackson said he thinks a lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a student at Narrows High School upset by the display, should be dismissed.
He called the lawsuit, and a recent suggestion by U.S. District Judge Michael Urbanski that the first four of the commandments be redacted to convey a more secular message, just the latest in a long list of government intrusions into people’s religious freedoms.
“We’re simply not going to be backed into a corner any longer and be told that the mere mention of God is a violation of who we are as Americans,” Jackson said in a telephone interview following the media event.
Courts have held that the posting of the Ten Commandments in a public school violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from endorsing one religion over another.
“I think there’s a lot of wrong-headed judicial precedent that has been going on for a long time,” Jackson said.
Jackson is one of four candidates — including former Sen. George Allen, state Del. Bob Marshall of Prince William County and Virginia tea party leader Jamie Radtke — seeking the Republican nomination to run for the seat being vacated by Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat.
– Laurence Hammack
May 16, 2012 - 5:30 PM
Displaying the Ten Commandments in government schools, is NOT “the mere mention of God” and I am sick and tired of pseudo-Christians pushing and forcing and misinterpreting their own religious tenets. These folks are going to “keep on” until they literally force the nation to repudiate Christianity as a form of bullying. Christians no longer convert people by force and they need to remember that. This is a nation of laws and a nation that supports separation of Church and State. Jesus did as well. “Render unto Caesar” and move on people, you are an embarrassment to the God you say you serve. Jesus browbeat NO ONE into following him and you can’t either. If you understand the repudiation of Sharia Law, then understand the repudiation of Christian Law as well.
From what I am reading, this is his personal opinion. Would he sign legislation allowing religious documents, such as the 10 Commandments, in the public schools? That would be a different story for me. I could not support that at all. Although, a lot of politicians can have religious convictions, but still remain constitutional. Hoping that is the case!
Sandi,
You are correct in the fact that many Christians go about “spreading the news” the wrong way. In God’s plan, for some reason he chose humans to make up his church. One downfall of that, is that we’re human. We make mistakes. However, there are some major flaws in your statements. How is wanting the ten commandments (which moral law is based on) to be publicly displayed browbeating? Have you really thought through “repudiating” Christian law? “Thou shall not steal…covet…commit adultery…murder…” Stop me when I mention one that needs repudiation. I am not a proponent of forcing my beliefs on you or anyone else. But I am tired of the implication that the mere mention of God in a state run institution is all the sudden a major catastrophe. What are you afraid of? Christianity is more than religion to many people, it is our hope in this life. If you choose not to subscribe to that hope, far be it from me to force you, but why do you feel you need to force your secularism on us? Seeing the ten commandments, or the name of Christ will not hurt you. Just look the other way. Thank you.
Jonathan, why do we have to look the other way? I have no problem with Christianity, but as an atheist, I don’t share your beliefs. Our country was founded by people fleeing religious suppression.
If Christianity really needs more advertisement here in the south where there is a church on just about every corner, pay for billboards like we atheists do, don’t hang your “historical documents” in a public school.
Jonathan, since we are sharing flaws, the flaw in your own argument is assuming that the problem is solved by advising, “look the other way”. That is not how it works. Not for the good and not for the bad. America is a nation of laws, secular, all encompassing and not respective of religious sentiment. EVERYONE has to follow the laws, whether that is also your own religious or moral code or not. We do not get to display our religious documents and tenets in government buildings and property and exclude those of the other major (or even minor) religions without “establishing a religion” in anyone’s mind. It may be what we WANT to do, but it is not what we should be allowed to do.
Our Constitution as well as the Bible has a basic self-serving need to be separate. Not every person in this nation is Christian. Not every person in this nation understands that laws in one form or another have existed as long as mankind has. Not every person in this nation believes that the Biblical account of history is reliable. Is the proven existence of “the Code of Hammurabi” even a consideration? It existed well before the Bible was written. How do YOU determine that it is not the basis for our “moral laws”?
http://www.ushistory.org/civ/4c.asp
YOU believe our laws are based on the Bible but many do not. And even believing that, many of us still believe in separation of church and state and that displaying our tenets should be on OUR property and in OUR churches.
When those people and the courts have affirmed that position it is indeed browbeating and disrespectful to force our tenets to be displayed in government buildings and on government land. It has turned more people away from God than too Him, and is that the purpose? No, it is not. This divisive battle does not serve God or our commission to bring his message. It closes people’s mind.
I did not mean to say that the Commandments need or deserve repudiation, but rather that forcing them on people has that effect. In understanding the fear of Sharia Law, you have to understand the same issue is relevant in Christian Law. That is not the purpose of government. That is what the Pharisees tried. That kind of power and man-made judgement imperils our faith and service to God.
If you are “not a proponent of forcing my beliefs on you or anyone else” then you need to realize this battle is not serving God IMO.
Again, displaying the Ten Commandments is NOT “the mere mention of God”. THAT is the problem, we are arguing zebras and you are arguing horses.
Interesting phraseology, but “all the sudden a major catastrophe” is in meshing God’s Law with government. Jesus did not do it, he did not advise it and it was not a good thing for the people. Not then and not now. We are here to serve God not mammon.
I am afraid of nothing. I am a humble servant of God who tries to live as Jesus taught me to do. And trying not to sully his Law and my mission with politics and governance is hard enough as it is. I respect the right of others to have another religion or no religion at all and I want them to see the laws of God in the proper context not in the context of government. I want them to embrace God for God and God alone.
Yes, “Christianity is more than religion to many people, it is our hope in this life” but it is not the government of this nation. The ONLY person trying to force anyone here is you, and I maintain you are wrong. No one, in any school or on any government property, should have to “look the other way” so their own beliefs are not offended. No one should have to leave the room or be disrespected with a Christian, denominational prayer.
If YOU cannot display the Laws of God in the proper context and pray to God in a non offensive manner, YOU are the problem, not me.
I sincerely apologize for the epistle, but this issue is very important to me. We discuss it often in Sunday School and with my Christian friends. I admit I have no right wing friends, I consider them the closest you can come to modern Pharisees and I avoid them like ‘the plague’.
Sandi,
Thank you for the “epistle.” I respect your view point, of course I disagree, but that’s neither here nor there. One thing I had to laugh at though was your suggestion that “I get to decide that the bible is the source of our moral law.” Hang on a second there. Putting the discussion of whether it SHOULD be or not aside, did you take any history classes? Why do you think the 10 commandments are in so many court houses currently to be argued about? Have you read any of the founder’s writings? Whether you like it or not the Bible was the original inspiration of our laws. You all can debate whether you want that to remain or not, but you can’t change the actual facts of history. I don’t recall a reference to the Code of Hammurabi in any of the founding documents. And let me be clear, I know I sound argumentative, because I am frustrated to see a country that used to be so comfortable being “under God” turning against that, however, I believe conservatives, liberals, christians and athiests are all people. I don’t think anyone is a second class citizen. So rather than try to shout people down as being the problem, let’s just debate about it.
Also, I didn’t mean “look the other way” to be taken as “overlook something that’s wrong”. I mean, if I don’t like seeing something on tv, I turn the channel. If someone’s wearing an offensive t-shirt, I look away. There are so many things that I have to choose whether to look at or not. If you see the ten commandments, and you’d rather see the code of Hammurabi, then look away, or debate it like we’re doing, but don’t try to shut up the opposition.
Jonathan, the last thing I ever do is try to “shut up” the opposition, then I would be talking to myself. YOU started in with finding “flaws” and I followed through on that nit picking (and not welcoming) debate theme.
As I said, I am happy to debate this issue because it is important to me. The people who wrote the Constitution were the learned men of their time and many were aware that the Bible was A reference not THE reference and therein lies the problem of insisting that it was the “foundation” for a deliberately secular nation of laws. Having come from England and the Throne having the authority to decide the religion of the state, having doubtless been aware of the existence of other religious codes and mores, having been about the business of forming a nation and not a Theocracy, I completely reject that the Bible is the foundation for our laws, our Constitution and our society.
That wealthy and powerful religious zealots got the Commandments and other religious symbols into our government buildings, on the currency and even in the Pledge of Allegiance PROVES the problem rather than answers the question. NO ONE should have that power because sooner or later you will have to look at something more offensive and disrespectful than an individual with free speech rights, you will be offended and disrespected by your own government and the society you live in. Muslims, Hindus, Ba’Hais and Atheists live that every day and NO, we have no right to make them do so. If you have “freedom of religion” than you have the right for that religion to be respected. If it was not your religion, I feel sure you could see that very clearly. It IS my religion and I can.
What do YOU think Jesus meant here:
Mark 12: Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar
“13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax[b] to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
And they were amazed at him.”
What about this from Romans 13 Submission to Governing Authorities
“13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
And finally this one from 1 Peter 2:13-15
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.”
Even in the time of Jesus, which would have been the best time in history for a Theocracy, that was NEVER his intention for us.
Sorry again for the length. And I did not mean to bold all of the last.
The reason I mentioned Hammurabi and his laws was so you can see how far back they go and how similar they also are to the Biblical Laws. It is an interesting read and yes, it is history.
“Jonathan, why do we have to look the other way? I have no problem with Christianity, but as an atheist, I don’t share your beliefs…”
What part of not sharing someone else’s beliefs means that you should never be in the presence of any sort of reference to those beliefs?
As an atheist, why would it matter to you if you see a reference to any God? According to your beliefs, no God exists, so seeing a reference to something that you believe doesn’t exist couldn’t possibly be offensive. For you, if you are firm in your beliefs, then it’s no different than you seeing a publically displayed cartoon of a superhero that you know doesn’t really exist. Would that be offensive as well?
If the passage about God instituting governments is true, then are you saying that God instituted our government? And if he did, which God are you saying instituted it? The one that sent Jesus, who said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father except through me.” Or is it the God who could be any God that all religions point to? If it is the One God, is it the same one who wrote the ten commandments? If he’s the same God that wrote the ten commandments, and who instituted the government, was he the same God who said “I created both of these things, but I prefer for you to keep them separate so that the people who don’t believe in me can still be comfortable”? I’m just trying to exactly understand which God you believe in, as you say you are a believer. Because it sounds like the God you believe in is a little more politically correct than the one I know. I just don’t see the fine print on the ten commandments that says “follow these except in the cases where your government doesn’t acknowledge them to be the source of moral law…then just follow whatever they allow and just give me your love.”
IDK if it is willful or not, but some of you simply are not getting it. There is no “part of not sharing someone else’s beliefs means that you should never be in the presence of any sort of reference to those beliefs” and that is not what anyone is talking about here. What we are talking about is those beliefs getting the extra credence and influence (establishment) from our government. Which is what happens when those beliefs are displayed in schools and at the BOS meetings we have to listen to prayers “in the name of Jesus”. YOU KNOW there is a difference, you just do not want to see it. Funny how so many can see it when the subject is Sharia Law though. Everyone is “afraid” of that “influence”.
Doer it matter to you if you see what you believe is an unconstitutional action? Do you understand what a Theocracy is and how it can influence? Do you understand the gripe people have with “Sharia Law”? Well ALL of the same can be applied here. We have decided that there is a separation of church and state. Period. That is “stare decisis” on this issue. For schools, which are funded and run by the government and for government bodies doing the work of the government, from local to national, to show preference for one religion, nay one denomination of one religion, is “establishing”, it is placing one above the other. Which is all fine and dandy until the two wolves and the sheep are no longer Christian.
Why do you have to believe in God to be offended by an over reach of power? You act as if everyone who opposes the displays in schools and denominational prayers at public meetings is an atheist. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wish God was on more billboards, and in many, many more hearts. But he is not part of our government.
Chris Digiardo, you appear to be confused. This is not a discussion about “following” the Ten Commandments and whether the government supports them is totally irrelevant to our faith requiring us to.
Again, you all keep making this about something other than the discussion at hand. Which is why you can so easily believe it is about “the mere mention of God” and not government instituting a state religion.
Either learn the difference or show your ignorance. There is no middle ground here.
There is no other God but God in all of the world’s major religions. You are again trying to confuse the issue with cults and various religious anomalies with few adherents so you can play the victim.
I believe the Scripture is clear enough.
Sandi, not agreeing with you does not equal ignorance. Obviously, there is middle ground on issues like this, otherwise there would be no discussion. If there were no middle ground, there would be no suggestion from a judge for mediation and/or compromise.
I do not believe that the mention of a God, or a display of the ten commandments in a public place, is an establishment or endorsement of one and only one religion. I just don’t see it that way. I see a simple display and that’s about it.
I do not believe that just because there is a precedent in place about an issue, that this means that the precedent is always right and can never be challenged. What a sad world that would be to live in. I’m definitely not one to believe that anything is done the right way just because that’s the way that it’s always been done. As an engineer, I fight against this mindset every day! Again, what an awful way to believe! This is basically the same thing as believing that just because a precedent has been set, that the precedent always should be or will be followed from now on.
As far as you believing that this discussion has nothing to do with, “part of not sharing someone else’s beliefs means that you should never be in the presence of any sort of reference to those beliefs”… yes, that is part of the issue. If that weren’t part of the discussion for at least some folks involved, then we wouldn’t see questions like the one in post 4 that asks, “why do we have to look the other way?”
“Why do you have to believe in God to be offended by an over reach of power? You act as if everyone who opposes the displays in schools and denominational prayers at public meetings is an atheist.”
No, I was responding to an individual who said that she was an atheist. Her comments led me to believe that she was offended by the suggestion of having to look away from any display about any God. So the first question that popped into my head was, “if the sight of a reference to a God that you don’t believe to exist offends you, do you get offended by displays of ALL things that you don’t believe exist?” I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can’t think of anything that I believe doesn’t exist that I feel offended by.
I understand that Giles likely isn’t interested in displaying anything from other religions. I’m not supporting their mindset. I’m suggesting that decision makers go beyond that, and take advantage of this opportunity to truly promote acceptance of their neighbors and their differences. I’m of the mindset that I would prefer to hold them to the task of truly displaying as many historical and/or significant documents as possible, or at least as many as apply to students and teachers in that building, no matter the religion. In my opinion, precedents that say to remove all religious displays from public areas directly conflicts with all efforts to promote acceptance of each other’s religious preferences. There’s an opportunity here for real growth, change, and acceptance of differences in Giles County. To simply say “no mention of any religion in a public place” would be a waste of a chance to promote diversity and acceptance of our neighbors’ religious differences.
Hokie24, I have not even remotely hinted that not agreeing with me was the reason for ignorance. Anyone can disagree with me, anytime, but unless you can do so honestly and argue the issue at hand, you are showing either you cannot argue the issue or you refuse to understand what the issue is. Either is ignorant. And unproductive.
Sure there is “middle ground” ON THE ISSUE. Just stick to that and we will be fine. If you cannot do that, and it seems you cannot, you will have backlash from me.
AGAIN, the issue is not remotely “the mention of a God”, or just “a display of the ten commandments in a public place” it is the denominational prayers at government meetings and only Christian tenets displayed in a government school. You can argue that is not “an establishment or endorsement of one and only one religion” but I fail to see how that is true. How you see it as an individual is not the question. We cannot please everyone. When there is a question, or an issue raised, we go by the law, by the decided or adjudicated decisions. This one is decided. Not liking or agreeing with it is not how this stuff works. I don’t agree with “jay walking” but I understand it is against the law for me to cross the street as I please.
It is not just a “precedent in place”, it is a decided legal issue. The Supreme Court of the US has decided the issue.
A nation of laws is not at all a “sad world” IMO.
This is not a Mr. Rogers precedent we are talking about.
I repeat, because it matters, this discussion has nothing to do with, “part of not sharing someone else’s beliefs means that you should never be in the presence of any sort of reference to those beliefs” because that is the truth. We are not trying to dictate to any business any individual or any group. We are talking about not making these displays by verbal prayers or displays of tenets IN A GOVERNMENT MEETING OR SCHOOL.
No one should be confronted by that from their government. I cannot fathom why anyone would think they should. There is a difference in my home, in my church, on a billboard, in my office, in my car, in my yard and in a government school or the Board of Supervisors meeting.
I would have no problem with anyone who truly wanted to use the schools to teach that there are religious as well as legal tenets in our society, as long as they include all of the major religions and not just one. That would be non-offensive and actually educational too. All or nothing.
I am more ambivalent on public prayer. A non-secular prayer is not offensive if people feel the need to pray publicly. It might be uncomfortable for an atheist but it is not the government establishing a religion IMO. I could probably be convinced it is, but I do not see it as of now.
NO ONE is saying “no mention of any religion in a public place”, we are saying no mention of any religion in a government function. Government business is not the way to “promote diversity and acceptance” unless it is all inclusive. I have no objection whatsoever to all inclusive displays for educational purposes.
Sandi covered just about everything I would say in multiple posts, but as an atheist living in the bible belt, I’ve had people actually start crying when I tell them I’m an atheist, like they’re going to convince me to change my beliefs when I prefer to believe in science. I’ve gotten the “oh no, you’re going to HELL!” speech more times than I could ever count. I have a Darwin sticker on my car and guess what? You know how many “accidental dents” I have on my car to show for it? That’s a VERY Christian attitude to have wouldn’t you think?
I have Christian friends, Muslim friends, Jewish friends, Buddhist friends, etc. Do I get up and run when I’m w/ them and someone says a prayer or meditation? No. We respect each other’s beliefs. What I DO steer clear of are the Christian’s who are trying to save everyone’s souls and doing things that aren’t exactly very Christ like.
Well said Katrina. If you cannot see Christ in someone’s actions or words, He is not there. James 2:18 “How can you show me your faith if you don’t have good deeds? I will show you my faith by my good deeds.”
“Hokie24, I have not even remotely hinted that not agreeing with me was the reason for ignorance. Anyone can disagree with me, anytime, but unless you can do so honestly and argue the issue at hand, you are showing either you cannot argue the issue or you refuse to understand what the issue is. Either is ignorant. And unproductive.”
Yes, Sandi, you did remotely hint, when trying to convince another poster that their view of the issue wasn’t what you believed should be discussed. In comment #13 you said, “Either learn the difference or show your ignorance…” when you were trying to pretend that nobody is referring to the mere public mention of a religion. Obviously, people are referring to that. Maybe that’s not the issue for you, but as shown in comment #4 when Katrina asked, “why do I have to look the other way,” for others, yes, having to be in the presence of a religious reference, whether specific or not, is an issue, even if only in some small way.
Every one of my comments was a direct response to a previous comment on this blog. I wasn’t responding to my perception of what I thought people were saying, I wasn’t responding to “everyone”, I was responding to specific comments, and I quoted exactly which comments that I was responding to. For you to see that I quoted the comment that I was responding to, and then pretend that I’m too “ignorant” or “unproductive” to understand what is being discussed, is just incorrect.
“Sure there is “middle ground” ON THE ISSUE. Just stick to that and we will be fine. If you cannot do that, and it seems you cannot, you will have backlash from me.”
Well first, backlash from you isn’t what I’m concerned with. Second, I did stick to the issues being discussed on this particular blog and its comments, and cited the particular comments that I was referring to. My comments were direct responses to comments on this very page. As far as sticking to the issue, or sticking with the flow of this discussion, scroll back up the page and you’ll see that you’re the one who jumped into the middle of a question that I asked to Katrina’s comment #4.
“It is not just a “precedent in place”, it is a decided legal issue. The Supreme Court of the US has decided the issue.”
Are we now pretending that there’s not a process for Supreme Court decisions to be overturned?
And about 17 times, you focused on, “…no mention of any religion in a public place…” Yeah, I screwed up and meant to say Government place when I wrote that post. I knew as soon as I re-read my comment that you’d focus on that and ignore the rest of my comment. You can understand my typo/mistake when you remember that we’re talking about government buildings called PUBLIC Schools, right?
You also wrote about how you would support schools showing examples of all major religions… and if you had read the last paragraph of my May 18th @1:38 PM comment, you wouldn’t have wasted your time writing that.
Maybe for you, the issue has nothing to do with the “mere mention of a religion,” but for others, this idea is a big deal from both “sides” of the issue, and it is part of the issue, as clearly shown by other comments and questions above, as well as other roanoke.com blog entries. To ignore that part of this issue now is only setting yourself up for future, redundant arguments over an issue previously believed to be settled. Just look at the other posts in this thread. Look at the other pages of blogs around roanoke.com about this Ten Commandments issue… if it weren’t part of the issue in people’s minds, then why is it discussed on just about every instance of this issue appearing on the roanoke.com blogs? If it’s not an issue for you personally, then that’s great, and that should mean that there’s no need for you to keep jumping in to tell folks who are discussing their own personal viewpoint of that angle of the issue that it’s not part of the issue for you personally.
I keep “jumping in” because to make this as trivial and as minute as you and some others want to do both diminishes the truth and hides the real issue IMO. And I do not suffer people to do that. You can believe it is the “mere mention of God” as you wish and no, I cannot stop you, but that is not what this is about. You can believe that including all religious tenets is a good idea, but that is not what this is about. I think it muddies the water and conflates the discussion to keep saying it is something it is not and I have no intention of stopping my efforts to confront that or call it either deliberate or ignorant.
You do realize that your “efforts to confront that or call it either deliberate or ignorant” are just posts on a message board… right? You do realize that none of your “efforts” will EVER have any sort of effect on the actual court case related to this issue… right? You don’t really consider your “efforts to confront…” any sort of actual service or actual work, do you? You’re pretending that your “efforts” are important to someone other than yourself. This is a place for people to have discussions… relax.
Who made anything trivial or minute? How many times do I have to type that the “mere mention” is just a PART (not whole, not entire, only a part) of this issue for SOME folks (I didn’t even say it was part of the issue for me! Read my #10 comment again, I was asking a question to someone who did make it clear, at least as I read it, that it was important to them!) Others (as in not me) wouldn’t bring it up on nearly every blog page about this issue if this issue didn’t bring that concern to mind for them personally. “Confront” that until you’re blue in the face, it doesn’t make it any less true. And again, when I put my first comment on this page, I responded with a question to specific comments and questions, and I quoted those comments and questions when responding so that anyone reading would understand where my questions were coming from and that they didn’t just come out of thin air… or at least I thought anyone reading this page would understand.
This is a simple blog/message board… where people talk about whatever side of an issue that they wish to talk about, even if it’s not a big deal to you. You are not the moderator. Get ready for this… but sometimes, people will see things differently than you do, and their view will be just as valid as yours. What they want to discuss and question will be just as valid as what you think should be discussed. I know… it’s hard to believe, but it’s all true. And don’t worry, we’re all aware of your eagerness to call people and/or things ignorant. Anyone who browses through these blogs regularly knows that. It happens constantly… and has already happened multiple times to multiple people just on this one single page of comments, all because folks chose to (or at least tried to before you jumped in) discuss a part of the issue that you didn’t feel was important enough to grace this page.
If anyone ever “muddied” any water, it’s the person who jumps into the middle of a question to tell others that they aren’t discussing their own questions about an issue the right way. And speaking of muddy water, my original question in #10 never did get answered, but I’m sure that it couldn’t possibly be because you jumped in and tried to inform us all that we were too ignorant to understand your view of an issue and that we were discussing the topic wrong.
hokie24, I’d offer to pay you for the psychoanalysis, but it was so wrong, I would want a refund. Please tell me that is not what you do for a “living”?
I realize that my “efforts” are on a blog, I get that when I have to log in and click on thingys. I am not on a crusade, I just like to address what I see as extraneous and irrelevant. I am relaxed. This is a hobby.
How many times do I have to type that “mere mention” is not even a “PART” of the issue? No one is fighting the “mere mention of God”. That is a red-herring, “War on Christianity” nonsense IMO. I might well get “blue” in the fingers confronting that straw man, but I will continue to do so.
I believe I have responded to specific comments and POV’s as well.
Thank you for explaining the forum to me, I was convinced I was auditioning for “America’s Got Talent” before your efforts.
Now that you have established the parameters so clearly, is there a reason “people talk about whatever side of an issue that they wish to talk about” does not apply to me? “even if it’s not a big deal to you”? Are you telling me that I am not to disagree with anyone, or just not dare to disagree with you?
I don’t believe that saying someone’s point is not involved in this discussion is the same as saying “their view” is not “valid” if that was indeed the context of the discussion. If we were discussing a fight over “the mere mention of God”, all complaints against that would indeed be valid. If we were discussing that people should never be in the presence of any sort of reference to any beliefs, then all complaints to that effect would be valid. Since the discussion was the Giles County Ten Commandments and the efforts to display them in schools, and the corollary was the efforts at public denominational prayers at government body meetings, that was what I was asking people to discuss, not the multiple tangents that do not pertain to them. Sure, you all can go off in as many directions as your mind offers, I will still call you back to the discussion at hand if I want to. Why do you defend one and condemn the other? Telling.
I do think it is ignorant and distracting to bring in things not under discussion and I make no apologies for saying so. Not here and not anywhere else. It is a common tactic among people who either do not understand the issue or want to distort the issue.
No one is obliged to converse with me. I did not say any issue was “not important”, only not in context.
BTW, I answered your question in #10 by telling you that your question had nothing to do with what was said. No one can or is asking for any such. You were, as per usual, just trying to deflect the discussion into an “attack on Christians” or make it something it is not. It was not discussing the topic at all.
You are free to stop responding to me anytime you desire. It’s only a blog!
“Are you telling me that I am not to disagree with anyone, or just not dare to disagree with you?”
Nope, I don’t care who you agree or disagree with. My problem is that you seem to feel a need to tell others not that we’re right or wrong, but what you feel that we should or should not be discussing. You’re not agreeing, disagreeing, or providing information to anything. You’re just trying to tell someone that they are ignorant for discussing what came to their own mind (as well as a direct quote from Mr. Hammack’s blog entry at the top of this page) when they read this blog because it wasn’t focused on what you believe to be the only issue.
“How many times do I have to type that “mere mention” is not even a “PART” of the issue?”
I don’t know. No number of times is gonna make it true, so I guess… infinity? How many times do you have to type it before it will change the fact that the phrase “mere mention of God” IS in Mr. Hammack’s blog entry at the top of this page, therefore you might as well expect it to be part of the discussion on this particular page?
“BTW, I answered your question in #10 by telling you that your question had nothing to do with what was said…”
The question wasn’t directed to you. The question was directed to someone that said they were an atheist. I wanted to understand why the sight of something that they didn’t believe to exist in any shape or form would be considered offensive. The question was certainly related to what was said, and I even quoted in particular what part of Katrina’s comment that I was questioning. There’s no way that you could have answered the question, because the question had absolutely zero to do with you or your opinion, and without being an atheist yourself, you don’t have the background to answer for an atheist.
Bottom line, I was trying to ask Katrina a question so that I could further understand why she would be offended by the suggestion of turning her head from a display of something that she doesn’t even believe exists. I didn’t try to deflect a thing. I wasn’t rude or insulting. I said that I couldn’t think of anything that I didn’t believe exists that I would consider offensive to me, so I asked her why she would be offended by a display of something that she doesn’t believe exists. I used the example of a superhero, because as far as I know, the Hulk and Spiderman were the first things to pop into my head as people that don’t really exist. I asked a direct question based directly on Katrina’s comment. What in the world would I possibly be trying to “distort” on a message board?
And if we’re talking about deflecting, then why pretend that I’m the one who started the “mere mention of God” topic on this page? When I scroll up, the first mention that I see of it is in Lawrence Hammack’s blog post. After that, guess who the next person was to bring it up in the very first comment?? On this particular blog page, the “mere mention of God” is part of the discussion. You started the commenting by ensuring that it became part of this discussion.
No matter what you want the topic of this blog to be, and no matter how much you confront my efforts to ask a simple question, my question doesn’t change. It doesn’t matter if this blog topic is my favorite pancakes, my question is still the same based on Katrina’s comment. My quesion came from Katrina’s comment. It didn’t come from this blog, it didn’t come from you, it didn’t come from thin air. It was directly pointed at Katrina’s comment because I wanted to understand why something believed not to even exist could be found offensive.
WOW!
You can lecture until you feel finished. It is not going to change anything. I respond the way I respond and that is that. Does it even register that you are doing what you have taken me to task for?
I do not believe that E.W. Jackson was remotely correct (as quoted by Laurence Hammack), that he has been “told that the mere mention of God is a violation of who we are as Americans” and the only people “backed into a corner” are the Christians who believe in separation of church and state. I think he is wrong, stated the issue in the wrong (though self serving “War on Christianity) terms, and I think he is maligning people of faith and people of good conscience who see the encroachment coming from the church not from the government.
Now, if I think that the premise is wrong, why do I want to discuss it? It is not worthy of discussion IMO and I said so, because that is not what anyone involved in this situation is trying to do. It is a straw man argument and yet you want to have it.
I do not know why Katrina chose not to answer you but I am willing to bet no answer on earth would have satisfied you, so maybe she caught on to that and decided to make better use of her time.
As to your point in your question, I think you do both know and understand “why something believed not to even exist could be found offensive“. Let’s use your non-belief that super heroes exist. Can you imagine being offended if a school promoted them as the solution to the world’s problems? If they were on a wall of real life American heroes? If they were prayed to for strength and guidance en masse when you attended a BOS or Town Council meeting? I would be offended if people worshiped or “established” any such thing, even though I know they do not exist.
This is my last response to you here so, if you need the last word, please have at it.
Any answer from Katrina would have been good enough for me. I had no intentions of being smart-alecked with her response. It was a legitimate question because I was honestly curious. Katrina’s first comment appeared honest and straight forward, so I felt that her answer to me would be one that would be informative without being insulting. Her comments were not pushy. I like looking at things from as many sides as possible. This particular blog page was focused on Hammack’s interview, which included the fears of some folks who believe that the mere mention of God in public is under attack, and many of the comments picked up on that part of the blog. In my mind, it’s just another side for me to look at. It’s not for me to decide whether or not it’s an important part of the issue, but just another opportunity for me to ask questions. I’m an engineer, it’s what I do. I don’t feel like I can form an informed opinion on anything until I look at as many sides as I can, and Katrina’s point of view was one that I had not had a chance to talk with directly. Your insistance that her comments and my questions aren’t important enough to discuss here helped to ensure that I still have not had that opportunity to have my question answered.
“Let’s use your non-belief that super heroes exist. Can you imagine being offended if a school promoted them as the solution to the world’s problems? If they were on a wall of real life American heroes? If they were prayed to for strength and guidance en masse when you attended a BOS or Town Council meeting? I would be offended if people worshiped or “established” any such thing, even though I know they do not exist.”
I can honestly say that I would not be offended in the least. I can not imagine being offended simply by someone else doing something that I think is wrong. If I think that someone is wrong, then they’re just wrong. Seeing things that I believe are wrong is not offensive to me. If I got offended by every display of something that I believed was just plain wrong, I’d be constantly offended at every turn, all day, every day. To use your example of a super hero being promoted to solve the world’s problems… I see that the same as political advertisments claiming that candidates will solve this or that or the other. When I see a political advertisment that I know is full of lies, I’m not offended. I may feel sorry for that candidate and the supporters who fall for their lies, but I don’t feel offended.
In my last paragraph, when I say ‘wrong,’ I mean as in ‘not correct.’ I’m not talking about morally wrong or ethically wrong or things like that, you know what I mean? I just mean ‘wrong’ in the sense of there is a defined and accepted ‘correct.’ That’s hard to explain just by typing!