On 7/10/07, Todd Burch <promos / burchwoodusa.com> wrote:
> Gregory Brown wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I have to be honest.   What about the non-Judaic practitioners
> > in the US?  Frankly, I'm glad that "His" commandments are no longer in
> > courthouses in a country where free religious exercise is supposed to
> > be practiced.
> >
>
> Ok, I think I understand.  The Judeo-Christian group has had their
> articles of religious expression removed from public display, and you
> are basking in that.  Good for you.  Free religous exercise does not
> mean "free only on the condition that it does not offend some vocal
> minority".  It means free!

It's a matter of context.  The 10 commandments in courthouses make it
seem as if we are subject to government enforced divine law.

If the ten commandments are displayed in a museum, on the side of the
church, or heck, even on a taxi, you won't hear complaints from me.

But if you're going to put the 10 commandments on the side of a court
house, let's leave room for the four pillars, the five Buddhist
precepts, and let's really leave room for *anyones* religion.
Anything short of that amounts to endorsement.

Free exercise is entirely different than state supported endorsement.
The notion that the US is a Christian nation is only settling for
Christians.

And I'm not basking in anything really, I'm not a big fan of
courthouses in general.

> > As far as schools, same things go there.  I don't think the state has
> > a place in picking the spiritual views for students, that seems to
> > really push the envelope if you ask me.
> >
>
> I don't think the state is doing that here in the US.  As a matter of
> fact, they are doing the opposite.  They are squelching religous
> expression, because Group "ABC" might offend Group "DEF".

I don't really like that, either.  If students in a public school want
to start up a prayer group, I think they should be allowed to.  If a
student is chastised for not saying the "Under God" part of the pledge
of allegiance, that's a straight up breach of freedom.

> > It seems like you used the name of this library which really is just
> > clever and appropriate as a soap stand for your particular religious
> > beliefs, and it seems pretty far out of the scope of discussion here.
>
> I don't agree the name is clever or appropriate.
>
> Now, time for me to be perfectly honest.  This is the first time in my
> life I have ever taken a stand for my beliefs in a public forum.  Call
> me a slow starter.  I typically steer away from these discussions like
> the plague.  However, I wanted to make a point that Tom could have
> picked a better name.  I think I've made that point now.

It's a good discussion, just next time, be sure to immediately change
the subject header to read Off-Topic because it has nothing to do with
Ruby.  As you can see, there are plenty of folks who are interested in
sharing their opinions on this, myself included.  But honestly, this
discussion might have been better held off list or on a different
forum.

That having been said, I'm not questioning your beliefs, I'm simply
noting that touting them on a technical forum isn't a great idea.
There are plenty of generalized reasons to be upset about the name of
the library, so "His Commandments" needn't ever enter the discussion,
IMO.