Look what else he's holding. Lovely, just lovely.
Posted on 11/13/2006 10:57:02 PM PST by B4Ranch
But then again, look at who they have morphed Moses into on the frieze --- one of our founding fathers?????? So who is carrying those Tablets of the Ten Amendments: James Madison? T. Jefferson? G. Washington? I got it. Stonewall Jackson? It is pure lunacy and these people who rule us from there want to be taken seriously??????
That Washington Monument looks a lot like that same monument to Peter that sits right in the middle of the Vatican Circle in Rome. Do you think there might be some semblance of meaning here or just coincidence????
Funny.
Moses was NOT holding a sword while he held the Ten Commandments. (Er, amendments.)
So, why is only Mohammad depicted with a sword?
I do hope this is correct. I have read assertions that it is Islam that is the fastest growing religion.
Carolyn
It will take an act of God. And that my friends will happen at some point, whether we will still be called America or not is another question.
If those are the 10 Amendments - who's the guy holding them? This isn't even PC run amok, just more work by the anti-Christian devil brigade.
Never toured the court. I think I might, now.
You're confused. Nobody's claiming that Moses's tablet contains the Bill of Rights. Moses with the 10 Commandments is depicted on the *South* Frieze, but the author's conspiracy theory concerns the East Frieze. The east frieze has various allegorical figures representing stuff like Justice and Wisdom and Defense of Human Rights. In the center of the frieze are male figures representing "Majesty of Law" and "Power of Government". On the ground between those two figures is a large tablet which the sculptor says represents the Bill of Rights. *That's* the tablet the author is writing about, *not* Moses's tablet. Moses is not on the East Frieze at all.
I'm a bit confused with regard to the first comment. I don't believe I stated anything that would imply that I wanted state sponsorship. I don't believe we should allow revisionist efforts to basicly downgrade the legitimacy of our nation's founding principles.
I agree that this is our culture. I do believe it's worth fighting for.
Yes, Moses was a Jew, but it's undeniable that many of the Jewish tenets were brought over into Christianity. Jesus' admonition that the deciples go out and spread the good word to non-jews was the figurative birth of Christianity.
The Ten Commandments are very important to Christianity. Therefore I think the case you're making regarding Moses being a Jew is somewhat lost on the overall topic.
Would you agree?
It is well established law that the common law remains the basis of US law. Judges have to allow continuity in cases and procedure because it is simply not possible to legislate every piece of minutae - as a result, they refer to existing practice where the written law is silent, and that practice runs back through the colonies to England.
Nobody abolished the state of Massachusetts when the US formed. If you go to its founding documents, of course they were written by puritans. They didn't have much positive law yet. So they referred to the common law - and the old testament. Which wasn't an innovation really, the same existed under the common law in England itself. Naturally there are unjust practices in past history and in past law, and we are right to chance them by positive law etc.
Nations existing through a depth of time that gives the lie to all radical modern ideologies. In very recent times, modern ideologues hostile to religion are attempting to excise religious influences from our history - but this has nothing to do with constitutions or the law.
You never see the ideologues in question putting things to a vote, as those who framed our laws always did, because to them the entire point of alleging something is a matter of law, is to persecute for their own brand of religious belief without even stating it, let alone convincing the people of any of it.
The very text you site puts a limit on actions by congress, and congress is not the universe. It also refers to an entirely clear legal concept at the time it was written, when most of the world and half of the states had established, single, official, religious doctrines. Which were in no way affected by that amendment.
What is happening in the actions described in the article is a Stalinist attempt to erase known friendly attitudes of all our legal traditions toward the basic judeo-christian heritage of the nation, by directly lying about the actual history of the country and its institutions. Which is indefensible in any cause, let alone in one that is indefensible to start with.
chance = change, site = cite - typos, sorry.
Actually, the reason freedom of religion was included had more to do with fear of one Christian sect having more power than another. That was the whole point behind Jefferson's "wall." He did not want to see a state church. His own beliefs aside, he did recognize that the Creator his countrymen referred to in their churches was the same God as the Christian God, which in turn, is the same God of the Jews. That God said that we should have no other gods before him, referring to pagan idolatry. In Christianity, Christ is accepted or not, at one's own risk, and has to do with personal salvation. One is free to choose that or not. The Jews, with the exception of the Messianic Jews, do not accept Christ as the Messenger and they have the freedom to make that choice. But the fact remains that Jews and Christians believe in the same God. This is the same God/Creator referred to in all of the documents and speeches of the Founding Fathers of this country. According to Jefferson and Adams, on the other hand, Musselmen and their god were bizarre and dangerous.
The next reference found said only the frieze "symbolizes early written laws" and then in 1999, the reference first appeared to that depiction being the "Ten Amendments to the Bill of Rights."
The ignorance of the Supreme Court staff is mind-boggling. Amendments One through Ten are not amendments to the Bill of Rights; they are the Bill of Rights. These are amendments to the Constitution. The first ten amendments to the Constitution comprise the Bill of Rights. There have been no amendments to the Bill of Rights (apart from Supreme Court rulings that have totally distorted what the Bill of Rights says). The fact that a tour guide at the Supreme Court and a reference document at the Supreme Court referred to "Ten Amendments to the Bill of Rights" speaks volumes about the rampant ignorance in this country of our history and the founding of this country. (It reminds me of the idiot assistant prosecutor in the OJ Simpson trial stating that the Constitution guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)
Moses came down from the mountain with the tablets bearing the Ten Amendments. This was before Jesus changed the water into juice.
Look what else he's holding. Lovely, just lovely.
Islam doesn't get any converts it doesn't bribe or coerce.
He should be veiled.
And this means what? If I am Hindu, I cannot freely exercise my religion if confronted with a symbol of a different religion? That is what this has been turned into.
Also, I would love to get a reaction from one of the Orwellian Tourist Guides when confronted with the facts.
"OK, like below, is a picture of a man holding the Ten Amendments."
"Excuse me, miss, but those tablets are written in Hebrew. Look at the writing? Aren't those really the Ten Commandments? Is the Supreme Court afraid of acknowledging God?"
"OK, are there, like, any other questions?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.