Polite folks leave religion and politics at the door. If I dig deep on that statement, I’ll have to start at the surface. Polite folks leave religion and politics at the door. As the writer of that statement it means what it means, however, for the reader to understand it, given that you can’t ask me what I meant when I wrote it, one must understand the meaning of each word, the sentence structure and the context in which it was written.
See definitions below.

     In a nutshell, no two people see the same shade of light. Just look at all the different religions, different views within   just the Christian religion, all the different views in one denomination and particular church, then ask each individual how they feel their particular church interprets their particular bible and if they subscribe to such interpretations. It is never ending.

    In a perfect world, we could all have our particular religions, beliefs and perspectives for the basis of our search for happiness and contentment. It isn’t a perfect world, however, when the forefathers wrote the constitution I believe they intended to set a base so that we may all choose our path from our particular perspectives, be they based on religion, politics or materialism. So in a sense Americans do live in a perfect world.

    Why would we want to jeopardize this ideal by allowing a specific religions prelude to be displayed in a tax supported building that is in place for all.   Why would we allow a Judge, (an arbitrator/ mediator) to bring his perspective into our building?  I submit that we didn’t allow it to happen. This particular Judge  took something that belongs to individuals for his personal agenda. Forgetting the law and the argument over “church and state” I personally  resent the use of power this judge forced on the public. By this very act this judge showed his disrespect for the saying, Polite folks leave religion and politics at the door.

And everyone, except those impolite folks, would happily live their life through their personal beliefs in their own house.

A footnote, I left religion out of my argument, can you?

I’m one of those that think the First & Second Amendment to the Constitution and some of its objectives are not practical in today’s world as it was written in a markedly different era. There are rarely constitutional issues concerning basic rights because most everyone wants basic rights that allow them to choose their lot in life.

I believe that the Constitution/Bill of Rights was written expressly to protect those basic rights.

I believe that the Constitution/Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of everyone to be able to practice their own religions with out fear of reprisals from the government & was not written with the intent, in any context, that would allow government to espouse any particular religious organization/God

I believe that the Constitution/Bill of Rights was written to allow freedom of speech by all individuals and not indented to protect, MTV, or the video, “faces of death”. Those protections, or no, should be left for national community leaders to decide the merits or no for society of such, not their money making ability.

I believe that the Constitution/Bill of Rights was written in the waning days of the American revolution and in the approaching days of cowboys and Indians. It was written to help secure the protection of the community by allowing the people to keep and bear arms for the protection during the taming of North America. & was not intended to allow automatic weapons with armor piercing bullets to be carried by the people, militia or no.

Note that the ten commandments and the Bill of rights differ markedly in their context as a whole. The first three commandments basically say, my way or the highway. The First ten amendments gives you human rights. Written in a lawyerly way,

 Commandments       From one of many

            V

       Rights                For all and one.

That one passage in the first amendment has spawned a debate that will cloud and expand its meaning for as long as its held as the basis for separation of Church and State.

If my recollection of public classroom history is correct we had a revolution because we wanted to be in complete charge of our destiny. All the other factors my history teachers, and all others talked about;  not being told what religion we had to practice, being unfairly taxed, were just reasons that supported the fact that we wanted to chart our own course. It was those folks, and more, who stepped off the Mayflower that were paying the price to build a new country. A 150 years later those who had been developing this county felt it was their time to control what they had sacrifice for.

I believe it is difficult for many Christians to watch the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama courthouse but it is also difficult for others who have different Gods that have different principles that are a prelude their beliefs. Those minorities are exactly who the first amendment was trying to protect. No one will ever see the Koran’s Ten Commandments in any courthouse in America, no matter that they promote the same virtues as those in the Bible.

It is not a good thing for the simple majority to rule in matters of basic law.  Because the law can be bought by those with power and charge. As in the cry of gun enthusiasts, “ if government is allowed to control our gun ownership then soon we will have no guns.

Allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in one courthouse and soon the Christian right will be running the government. Something that would be good for those who hold the same belief, bad for those who don’t.  There can not possibly be a succesfull arguement that suggest the constitution was written for the majority.  In fact it was writen to protect the minority.

If we want to be fair, and fairness is what the constitution is based on, why don’t allow all other preambles for religious organizations to be displayed next to the ten commandments. Or allow the ten commandments to be displayed next to the others. I would suggest that those that want the theirs displayed don’t have fairness in mind, they just want it their way.

Me too!

Whoever disagrees with the above beliefs are in a minority so small they just need to find a group that share their minority beliefs and I’ll bet that the majority who agree with the above will vote that they can create and belong to such group.

In the context of how a body of elected officials govern or control a group of people?

what does religion have to do with how those basic human rights are protected?

If you include religion and politics in an all encompassing rule book you just won’t make everyone happy. All major religions are founded on a rule book of their own and the majority of religious folks don’t have a working knowledge of all such rule books. I will suggest that most religious folks have a working knowledge of other faiths that is as interpretive as of their own, prejudiced to fit their beliefs.

It is very simple to make a rule book that excludes these