Hey Les, guess what is happening now?  There are volunteers wearing shirts with the Ten Commandments on them to stand where the monument once was.  Folks from Montgomery say that there have been about 600 folks tops at the court house and that was days ago.  Not exactly setting the town, or the bush, on fire…

You have got to be kidding me. :O

Oh man, this is just too rich! I have got to find me a picture of this! Pardon me while I go find a tissue. I’m laughing so hard I’m crying.

Just goes to show you should never underestimate the determination of some people to thrust their beliefs upon others.

I have always thought if any single belief was so wonderful we wouldn’t need to have it rammed in our faces at each and every opportunity to accept it. I suppose some people disagree, although I can’t see how ‘christians’ feel wronged by the removal of the ten commandments, seeing as Christs main purpose according to the bible was to do away with the ten commandments anyway… :O

First of all, I feel like I’m stealing your name… sorry bout that, t’is mine as well. Secondly. And correct me if I’m wrong please (I’m an Aussie), but when you start incorporating Religion into the government, doesn’t that change it from a Democracy and turn it into a Theocracy? I though that was the definition of Theocracy? and wait, isn’t that why there are still troops in Iraq? In order to build a Demoracy instead of letting people be controlled by a Theocracy. You said it well SEB, Civil Liberties for all. Not just those who have the same belief stucture as the majority.O.K. I’m gonna get off the box now. Just that this issue really, really annoys me. To many thoughts… not enough cohesiveness… SEB, you’ve been a breathe of fresh air throughout. thanks. I’ll leave you with a quick question. What do you think people would do if a judge decided to put up a statue of Varuna in his court room?

Screw that, I want somebody to fill the vacant spot with the biggest Buddha somebody can find from a local Chinese restaurant.

And I encourage everyone in the gawking rabble to sell all their earthly possessions, get a one-way ticket to some obscure spot on the Sinai Peninsula, and try to find where the original Ten Commandments might have been handed down.

Dear Norbizness,

The Sinai you say!  Hummmm....Where’s your Bible?
If you had one, you might find out that Mt. Sinai is NOT reputed to be in the Sinai Peninsula.  At least not in the Bible.

I refer you to Galatians(that’s in the NEW testament)ch.4:25, though I doubt you will read it since you obviously don’t feel it necessary to know of what you speak!

Now, the REAL Mt. Sinai is in northwestern Saudi Arabia, and its’ Arabic name is Jabal al Lawz. This area of Saudi Arabia went by the name of Midian in ancient times.  By typing into your search engine, the name of said mountain, you MIGHT find out some interesting things.  Well, I find it to be quite fascinating!

The Snerk

Becky

Where in your Bible does it give the location of Sinai?  Is your Bible entitled, The Gold of Exodus?  I�ll let Norbizness answer your condescending rant, but some of your brethren do not agree with you: 

The “Red Sea” by which Moses led Israelites on their exodus from Egypt was not the body of water now called the Red Sea. The Hebrew word is Yam Suph, meaning “Sea of Reeds.” It is now believed that the Sea of Reeds “was perhaps located at the S extension of the present Lake Mensaleh.” (The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 4, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962, page 21)

That would be hundreds of miles northwest of Jabal al Lawz on the Mediterranean coast near Port Said, Egypt.

Here�s another:

A footnote in The Harper Collins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version: with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books (edited by Wayne A. Meeks and the Society of Biblical Literature, New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 1993, page 96) states:

Red Sea, the “Sea of Reeds,” possibly one of the lagoons along the Mediterranean coast of the Sinai Peninsula;… Few of the geographical sites in the Exodus narrative can be identified, and it is possible the Red Sea is meant; although it is unrealistic here, it may have been adopted to present a later Israelite audience with a well-known body of water.

Pretty much in the same area, perhaps further east, but still hundreds of miles from Jabal al Lawz.  And the most cited work on this subject, from Amazon.com:

An Indiana Jones Type of Adventure August 17, 2001
The Gold of Exodus is about the archeological adventures of two men, Larry Williams and Bob Cornuke who believe that Mount Sinai is not in the Sinai Peninsula as many scholars have thought, but in northwestern Saudi Arabia. The real Mount Sinai is a mountain known as Jabal al Lawz and is now a top secret Saudi military base. The two men make some interesting discoveries and whether you believe their theories or not, The Gold of Exodus was a book I couldn’t put down. There are many things in this world that are not what we think they are and it is best to keep an open mind. I won’t give away any more details as I truly hate it when reviewers tell so much about the books that there is no reason to read them.

Nearly all web hits for Jabal al Lawz reference these two yoyos, Cornuke and Williams, who sneaked into Saudi and discovered the �truth�.  Personally, I wouldn�t think that recounting the same story numerous times validated its truth, but this is the land of the free.  You would be hard pressed to find a Mt Sinai/Jabal al Lawz story that didn�t mention this book and these two �adventurers�.

You are apparently absolutely sure of the truth of Mt Sinai�s location�that�s cool I guess, but I can�t even be absolutely sure of where I was born!!!  I was pretty young then and only have the word of my parents.  If you think I�m gonna take their word for it�

My larger point stands, ignorance of geography notwithstanding. If you believe in that stuff, you won’t find the source in Montgomery, but somewhere in the Middle East. Thanks for the education, though.

Did anyone see the guy yelling to “put it back” as it was being rolled away. He also yelled at them to “take your hands off our god”. Sounded like the monument was his golden calf.

Yeah, that was the guy that was pretending someone was holding him back!  Very amusing.

Dear Norbiz,

MY ignorance of geography or YOUR ignorance of geography?  Doesn’t matter.  I have noticed, though, that sarcasm and put-downs on this website certainly prompts responses.  And THAT is what I am interested in!

The fact that you consider Cornuke and his buddy to be yo-yos is neither here nor there.  The fact that you THINK a certain thing doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Becky(the Snerk)

Becky, let’s just get right to the heart of the matter, shall we? 

My fictitious god can beat up your fictitious god…

Rinse and repeat.

There!  Now we have the history of religion in a nutshell.

So na-na na-na na-na, I’m rubber and you’re glue....  what is your point?  You are the one that �corrected� Norbiz with the “true” location of Mt Sinai, as if your years of scientific research (translation: visit to one or two idiotic websites) gave you any insight.  Is you’re objective merely to argue an inane point and try to piss people off?  If so I don�t see much sense in that, but you press on.

If this is going to become the omnibus obscurantism thread for (hopefully former) Judge Moore, I have a question: were any hysterical protests organized, travel taken, signs made, pimento cheese sandwiches thrown together, or bullhorn practices consumnated on the Sabbath?

If so, then the only logical penalty for these Sabbath-breakers is death (mentioned about 4 times in Exodus). We can’t divorce the laws of our country from the moral foundation handed down on Mt. Sinai (location: somewhere in Kentucky), after all.

Dear Jake & Bill,

I suppose I could DAZZLE you with all my extensive education...formal, higher....etc.,I do have some, but education doesn’t necessarily make anyone objective.(not even Christians!) I just really do have an interest in ancient history, particularly of the Middle East.  And particularly the Jewish people and the Bible.

Prophecy is the proof of the Bible.  Read Ezekiel 36.  This verse predicts the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland.  Has that happened?  Are they now a nation?  You bet they are!  Not only that, but OTHER prophecies speak about hundreds of things that would happen after their returned to their homeland.  Jesus, in speaking of the end times, said,(I think in Matthew 24), that unless those days were cut short,(by his return) no flesh would be saved.  We humans are at the point of being able to wipe out all life on earth, aren’t we?  The God of the old testament said that he tells the end from the beginning. 

The diaspora was predicted.  The treatment of Jews throughout history was predicted.  Remember the Holocaust, and the murder of Jews by Christians in Europe because they were “Christ killers?” That Israel would fill the world with fruit was predicted.(They are the 4th largest exporter of fruit in the world). 

The heart of the matter, as far as I’m concerned, has nothing to do with beating anybody up.  Why do you think God is mean? Ignorance is no excuse for ANYTHING!  Now, if you were to read something about Bible prophecy, you might actually decide there was something to it, or maybe not.  Who knows? 

Isaiah 46:10 tells end from beginning.

Deuteronomy 28: 64-67 predictions of jews suffering throughout history.

Zechariah 12:2-3 concerning Jerusalem...look what’s happening now...with the roadmap to peace.  It will get worse.

Matthew 24:22 days cut short.

2nd Peter3:5 willingly ignorant.

Why not go to khouse.org and get some GOOD material?  It won.t be painful, I promise.

Becky

Hmm interesting, I have to say I find the bible an amusing storybook myself. I mean most of the scriptures can be taken to mean many different things, it just depends on how you want to use them. One thing I would suggest however is never base your conclusions on anything less than two scriptures, because one scripture alone means nothing.

You know it’s funny that you quote Isaiah, because I’ve always taken that particular scripture to show that God new damn well what was going to happen to mankind as soon as he created them. So in effect he is the cause of all the suffering and evil on the Earth.

Also most of the prophecies you quote related to the pre christian Jews, as after Christ they were no longer considered to be his people, so modern day Israel wouldn’t really be relevant.

In all honesty my belief is that Christs message was to stop following religions, and to start learning about personal faith. The bible is just a book, written by men, to control men. If God (assuming he even exists) wanted people to listen to him I doubt he’d use a flawed and contradictory book like the bible…

Oh great. She’s a Biblical Prophecy believer.. Now there’s an argument that’s not even worth going into…

I have a little free time on my hands since I am currently on �sabbatical� (translation; laid off by a greedy corporate entity of the New World Order) Don�t fret...I start a new job next week.

OK Becky I went to hhouse.org.  It appears to print �all the news Christians want to hear�.

It says the Roman Empire lasted for 2,000 years and was not defeated by anyone.  The sources I�ve seen start the Roman Empire just prior to the birth of Christ; the less influential Roman Republic existed prior to that.  The empire lasted until Germanic invasions (those pesky Vikings), economic decline, and internal unrest in the 4th and 5th centuries ended it.  There was an extension of the Roman Empire in the east, the Byzantines who ruled until the Ottomans defeated them a few hundred years ago.  Inarguably, the European-based Roman Empire did not exist for 2,000 years and the eastern empire was not nearly as powerful or influential. 

It also speaks of the persecution of �Christians� in Eritrea.  I did a little research and found out the reason for the �persecution�.  It is because Evangelical Christians are running around proselytizing and causing unrest.  The government isn�t persecuting these people because they are Christians, but rather because they are not the �right kind of Christians!� Sounds like a little church/state separation would be appropriate in Eritrea.

Persecution is a key tenet of the Christian faith; they don�t appear to be happy unless they�re being persecuted.  The Romans didn�t persecute Christians because they were Christians; they did so because Christians were breaking the laws of Rome.  The persecution of Christians in the Sudan is a flagrant over exaggeration.  That persecution is not only directed at Christians, but also to peoples practicing indigenous religions (animists).  The animists outnumber Christians by a 5 to 1 ratio.  So the real story in Sudan is a bunch of Muslim jerks are persecuting anyone who isn�t Muslim.  It looks like the Christian media�s perspective of the Sudan situation is only concerned with the Christians and to hell with the animists.  I would tend to be concerned with the well-being of all the people who are being discriminated against�wouldn�t you?

It seems that whenever Christians aren�t persecuted (as they are not in the USA) they have to go do things to cause them to feel persecuted; like defying the laws of the US by installing a monument to Christianity in a public place.  So much for Christ telling people to pray in their closets out of the sight of men.

Don�t hold your breath waiting for a new Roman Empire in Europe.  I may receive some flak for this, but in my observation, Europeans can�t agree on much of anything (jump in here and bash me anytime Serai:) ).  To equate the European Union to an �empire� is childish to the extreme.  All indicators point to China as the next major world power, but there�s nothing biblical about that, so it�s ignored.  How absurdly arrogant to assume that on the scale of human history, the end times will occur in your infinitesimal lifetime.  I found another very curious statement on the site:

World War II had left Europe scarred with deep ruins and despair.  Many leaders realized that they could never let that happen again.  However, numerous attempts at alliances and treaties were attempted, but doomed to failure.  The roots of the tensions ran too deep.

Damn, they can�t even keep a coherent thought!  Is there going to be a new Roman Empire of isn�t there?  I thought NATO, which was established in 1949 and still in existence today, was a military alliance.  You mean I didn�t participate in NATO for 13-plus years?  I wonder who all them thar �fur-in-ers� wuz who I was workin� with�I thought they wuz Europeans :?.  And NATO has grown significantly since I left it just seven years ago.  I also thought the EU was an alliance, which was specifically designed to preclude disasters like WWII from ever happening again.  I guess it�s not�I must not be as highly educated as you and your ilk.  Please commence to DAZZLE me!

You folks are in the habit of assigning any attempt by nations to reconcile their differences and cooperate as some kind of nefarious conspiracy.  Any positive developments in human relations are twisted into something negative.  Being that this is America (I assume you are American) I fully defend your right to be ignorant (though nothing in the Constitution sanctions a right to ignorance).  Hey, I propose a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to accommodate the Snerks of our great land:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of ignorant thought, or prohibiting the free exercise of extreme ignorance thereof; or abridging the freedom of ignorance, or of the press to be ignorant; or the right of the people ignorantly to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances in an ignorant fashion.  The right of the people to believe in childish conspiracies, get their information from ignorant websites, and to peaceably assemble for the mother ship to zoom them away to heaven, shall not be violated.

Oh how I wish a UFO would zoom them all off to Heaven… The world would be a much better place if something like that could happen.

Europeans can�t agree on much of anything (jump in here and bash me anytime Serai )

Oh for shame Bill, you honestly think I keep score and try and even things up with ‘bashing’? Actually I have to agree with your statement in some respects you are right, Europe seems to be more a collective of cliques than a single union at present, but I think it’s due to various nations jockeying for a better position than anything. Notwithstanding the old rivalries such as England and France.

As for this particular point of debate, well I am not actually an atheist, but I don’t believe in the God or gods of most religions either, they all seem far too convenient for my liking ie making nice decrees that empower men. I prefer to believe in a higher being and leave it at that, because as a rule I tend to only really believe things which I have personal experience of.

Coming from a strict Christian cult upbringing (JW’s) I know perhaps as well as anyone the harm that these dogmatic beliefs can do to people, it has taken me years to undo all the guilt trip mental programming they inflicted on me…

“The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to protect the basic rights of the minority from the will of the majority. In other words, it ensures that in this country the �Majority� don�t always get what they want when it comes to imposing their will on everyone else.”

WRONG!

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect THE PEOPLE from GOVERNMENTAL EXCESS!

What you people don’t know would fill volumes!

Sheesh!

It is true that the bill of rights was created to protect the people from governmental excess, but how do you think the majority would implement their will? Generally it is through laws passed by their elected representatives, i.e. the government, and guess what they are constrained by? You got it, the bill of rights (at least we hope they are constrained by it).

WRONG!

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect THE PEOPLE from GOVERNMENTAL EXCESS!

What you people don�t know would fill volumes!

Sheesh!

“But whatever may be form which the several states have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.” --James Madison in a speech proposing the Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives, June 8, 1789.

What was that about what us people don’t know? Try again, George. Next time you might want to make sure you’re not talking out of your ass before you speak up, though.

Don�t bore George with �little� details Les�Madison only authored the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights probably would not have been written were it not for him, but what the Hell did Madison know!  He was just a nerdy little guy who penned some of the most brilliant documents in the history of human kind.  If everyone in this country was required to read James Madison�s papers, there would be very little debate on this church/state separation issue.

Madison was not a �religion hater�, but he had disdain for the clergy.  When he was young, he heard about some Baptist preachers who were jailed in Virginia for�gasp�teaching Baptist principles in public!  The Anglican Church (double gasp�Church of England) was the �state� church of Virginia at the time.  In a letter to one of his colleagues, Madison wrote:

“That diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages among some and to their eternal Infamy the Clergy can furnish their quota of Imps for such business.  This vexes me the most of any thing whatever.  There are at this time in the adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the main are very orthodox. I have neither the patience to hear talk or think any thing relative to this matter, for I have squabbled and scolded abused and ridiculed so long about it, to so little purpose that I am without common patience. So I leave you to pity me and pray for Liberty of Conscience to revive among us.�

The proponents of government sanctioned religion don�t want to admit the obvious�they mean sanctioning their brand of religion.  Surely everyone thinks their brand of religion is the only true religion.  I don�t suppose Catholics get up in the morning and think, �Let�s see�what horrible, unbiblical things will my Hell-bound ass do today?� They think they are right, just like Moslems, Jews, Baptists, Methodists, etc., think they are right.

Roy�s Rock was a blatant attempt to sanction his brand of religion.  That moron Bill O�Reilly said that the Ten Commandments don�t represent a religion, so there�s no problem with it; I assume he meant a specific religion.  Well I don�t think the Constitution addresses a particular religion either; the term religion is used in the plural sense.  And as is the case with most things in the law, it goes to intent�what was Roy�s intent in placing the monument?  By his own admission it was to promote and acknowledge his brand of religion.  Intent is a pretty important concept under the law.  It could mean the difference between freedom and a lethal injection!

The Constitution was not written to address specific issues; it addressed broad and general principles.  If it did address specifics, it probably would have been thrown out by now.  The religious right insists that because the Constitution doesn�t contain the phrase �Separation of Church and State�, it implies support for state sponsorship of religion.  By applying that logic, prostitution should be legal nation-wide, because it is not specifically addressed!  Some could argue that support for that ancient enterprise is equivalent to �the pursuit of happiness��not me mind you�some people could�you know who you are :evillaugh:

I sent my response to George who sent it back saying I needed to read the whole quote (which, naturally, I had) as it supported his point. He totally ignored the fact that I wasn’t saying his statement was wrong, just that my original statement was also correct.