Releases, dustups

lachoy on 2002-02-27T14:50:14

Released another version of OpenInteract on Monday. There aren't any huge changes, but a few nice ones. And it's good to put out a release that causes no pain for upgrades :-)

I shot my mouth off a little bit on the P5EE mailing list. I'm afraid with my posting history I'm going to get a rep as some sort of Vichy government for the Java juggernaut :-)

I got all worked up the other night when flipping around and landing on that gasbag on Fox news. He was talking about how posting the ten commandments doesn't violate the first amendment, and how not having the amendments has caused the downfall of the justice system due to the lack of morality. I know it's his job to get people riled up, but still...

---

It Doesn't

pudge on 2002-02-27T15:18:21

The writers of the First Amendment clearly never meant it to exclude posting of the Ten Commandments in public places. They had that and other religious things posted in public places all the time, and they did -- and the legislature and judicial branches still do -- start off sessions with prayer to God. It isn't unconstitutional, unless you think the Constitution should be interpreted in some way other than it was originally intended, which I don't agree with for a portion of a moment.

Now, it may be that the de facto posting of the Ten Commandments may be considered to take away someone else's right to freedom of religion; however, that is not the same thing as disallowing all cases of posting the Ten Commandments, as it would be dependent on each specific circumstance: if no one is offended, then there's no violation on those grounds.

At that point it may end up as, "The Ten Commandments in a public place are not unconstitutional in themselves, but someone will probably be offended, and we'd have to take it down, so it's best to avoid it entirely."

As to the lack of its posting causing immorality, no, I think we're capable of achieving that regardless of what's printed on our walls.

Re:It Doesn't

lachoy on 2002-02-27T16:01:51

Having non-preachy (for lack of a better word) religious items like the ten commandments posted on government buildings bothers me, but it's not that big a deal, particularly when it's in a historical context. (Obvious symbols of a religion: crucifixes, christmas trees, etc. are another matter.)

What really pissed me off was two aspects of his argument. First, on the one hand he claimed that because the ten commandments didn't endorse a particular religion, posting them didn't violate the constitution. ("Hey, it includes Christians and Jews.") Then he follows that up to say that the lack of morality in the justice system derives from not posting and following these tenets. Well, if they don't endorse a particular religion then they can't endorse a particular morality, right? But...

Second, his amazingly offensive implication that people without religion -- or more specificially, without a Western Judeo-Christian-derived religion -- are immoral, or at best tending toward immorality. But as you noted, no religion (or lack of religion) has a monopoly on immorality :-)