« divine intervention | Main | rock over london, rock on chicago »

a continuation on moore

See post below for reference.

It is not a matter of being offended at the ten commandents per se. We can, however, be offended in the manner in which the monument of the ten commandments was erected in front of the courthouse:

Moore...installed..the monument in the rotunda of the judicial building two years ago in the middle of the night.

August 16, 2001:

In what is described as a "smug," "brazen" and secretive move, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore has ordered stealth placement of a 5,280-pound monument to the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state's Judicial Building.

Moore also has opened his courtroom with prayer:

"Good morning, ladies and gentleman, I think we've got a roomful here today," Alabama Judge Roy Moore said as he greeted the crowd of spectators and prospective jurors packed into his courtroom on February 24. "As we have always done in Etowah County, we're going to be opening with prayer

Contrary to what some people are stating, Moore does not want the monument there as a testament to our legal heritage, but as a morality statement:

The chief justice testified that he installed the monument partly because of concern the country has suffered a moral decline over the past 40 or 50 years as a result of federal court rulings, including those against prayer in public schools

Moore has used his courtroom to rant against homosexuality on religious ground, he has posted the ten commandments in his courtroom and has traveled the nation telling kids to post the commandments in their classrooms.

He believes that posting the commandments in classrooms would stop school violence and that school shootings happen because the kids involved did not have a copy of the ten commandments handy.

Why have I posted all this? To back up my contention that Justice Roy Moore is using the monument in front of his courthouse as a rallying point for his religious agenda. This is not really about a piece of granite to Moore. It is about hard line Christianity and Moore's notion that we should all grasp his concept of religion, lest we roast in the fires of hell.

He is seriously misleading the Christian faithful who are guarding the monument day and night and taking Moore's mission to heart. For them, it may be about the commandments. For Moore, the followers are nothing more than a means to an end. He is using them and the publicity they are generating with their histrionics to spread the word of - not Jesus Christ or Moses or God - but Justice Roy Moore.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference a continuation on moore:

» 10 Commandements of kerfuffle? from Dodgeblogium
Ben has posted a rather good piece on the row about the 10 Commandments display in Alabama. The whole stink strikes me as rather silly. Some of the things said on both sides are rather ott. The Commandments,held dear by... [Read More]

» 10 Commandements of kerfuffle? from Dodgeblogium
Ben has posted a rather good piece on the row about the 10 Commandments display in Alabama. The whole stink strikes me as rather silly. Some of the things said on both sides are rather ott. The Commandments,held dear by... [Read More]


Maybe we can talk a judge into installing a Code of Hammurabi in his courthouse. http://www.lawresearch.com/v2/codeham.htm
In fact, we can argue that since this code predates this judge's prefered historical code, he should replace his with Hammurabi's.

At first I thought God why does she have to bring up Michael Moore on a nice Friday afternoon. But no, its the good Moore in the South.

First, let me start with the fact that I am a Christian...a pastor at that.

Second, I agree with you. If this were a historical monument, I would see no problem in it remaining - in truth, the Commandments have a tremendous influence in our law. I see no valid reason to divest ourselves of our history.

Yet this monument was placed under cover of darkness, and then be transposed into a "shrine" of sorts. Well, that flies in the face of all I believe (well pointed out in your earlier post in theose very same commandments), my relationship is with God...and a personal one at that. I do not believe reading the Ten Commandments will solve the moral problems in our nation, any more than I believe that standing in my garage calling myself a Corvette will make me a car.

It makes me sad to see people rail against Christianity as if it were a blight on humanity. It makes me even sadder to see theose that claim the name of Jesus Christ so lacking in His love. Jesus was confident that His truth was best carried in the hearts and lives of those that followed Him, not in physical monuments.


Roy Moore wants HIS god to be the god everyone else is forced to follow, and of course HE wants to be the person who gets to be his god's proxy here on earth. Kinda reminds you of those mullahs, doesn't it?

People like Roy Moore and Jerry Fallwell look longingly back on the time when people feared guys like them, when saying the wrong thing or listening to rock & roll in the wrong place could get someone in serious trouble - even lynched. What really pisses them off is that in this day and time, their puffed up pronouncements about morality strike fear in no American hearts.

They're pathetic, but even so the rest of us must remain diligent in the protection of our freedoms. These weasels will never stop trying to exploit people's emotions to steal those freedoms away from us.

A question for people - which set of Commandments are carved on the statue?

Version 1 (Exodus 20: 2-17), which Moses promptly destroyed when he say the Israelites dancing around the golden calf (Exodus 32:19)?

Or Version 2 (Exodus 34:14-26), which were the ones written on the stone tablets that actually survived and ended up in the Arc of the Covenant.

Version 2 is really cool - you have to be very careful how you sacrifice your goats:

The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Maybe God thought version 2 were better than his first draft, which was why he gave that modified version to Moses after he broke the first set of tablets.

I wonder if Justice Moore realises he has been referring to a superceded set of Commandments?

You will burn in hell for this, Michele! Maybe we'll finally get to meet in person then.;)

Why do you hate God so much, Michellllllle? Is it because you know he favors the Blogger Alliance?

Paster PJ says:

It makes me sad to see people rail against Christianity as if it were a blight on humanity. It makes me even sadder to see theose that claim the name of Jesus Christ so lacking in His love.

These two sorrows are not unrelated, Rev.

Does anyone remember the great school prayer controversy during the Reagan administration? Knowing that actual prayers were out, the religious right sought to introduce "a moment of silence" into the schools, during which kids could pray, if they were so inclined, or meditate, or just snooze.

Now, I figured they were doing this so they could turn it back into prayer at the earliest possible opportunity. But their stated motives were the same as Moore's: kids today are all wicked and stuff because they don't pray.

Even accepting the idea that religious kids are good kids, and areligious kids are not (which I do not), are kids whose entire exposure to morality is 60 seconds of silence five days a week, nine months a year, really going to become moral? And are kids whose parents are careful to instruct their children into their religion---in deed as in word---going to become immoral because they don't have 60 seconds of Officially Sanctioned silence every day?

It's the same with these ten commandments. They are not magic talismans whose very presence ensures that Right Thinking will occur. Moore is a damned fool, and we've seen his like before. (I disagree with you in one respect, Michele. I don't think he's fooling anyone. I think his followers know exactly what they're doing.)

One of the characteristic things about God that seems to crop up over and over in the Bible is that He can take care of Himself, and faith in Him is its own reward, and its own protection. Earthly governments need not apply.

When has interaction between the church and the government ever benefited either in any sense other than monetary?

What bothers me most in all of this is the underlying assumption that we all believe in "God" - whatever that means to the individual. This is, as I hope we all know, not the case. Moore opening his court sessions with a prayer is not unusual in our government. Congress does it. State legislatures do it. I find all of it highly offensive to my consitutional right for separation of church and state. Yet when the Ninth Circuit invalidated "under God" in the Pledge of allegiance, everyone and their mother jumped up and down about how wrong that was.

There is actually an entire long line of Supreme Court decisional law regarding display of religious "stuff" in or around government buildings - mostly informed by a Christian viewpoint - so that it's OK to have Santa because technically Santa's not a true part of the Christian celebration of Christmas. Yes to a non-Chistian, Santa sure is Christian.

Yeah, I'm rambling now, I'll stop.

I see it as honoring the principles that the Founders were guided by when they designed this country. Sort of a modern day reminder that we stand for something principled and decent. I mean I don't care which religion you embrace or if you are a passionate non-believer, which of the ten are you going to counsel your kids never to obey?

FA, I will not counsel my kids to "obey" a directive from a non-existent being. I will counsel them to live by the principles I believe to be moral.

He's been suspended Yahoo News

Being a non-Christian, but believing there is a Supreme Being, that 3 out of 5 major religions believe in the same Supreme Being, I have always believed the 10 Commandments, as supposedly written my such Supreme Being's hand, such is something to follow more than any other thing in the Bible, Torah or Koran. Of course, those from Buddhism and Hinduism have different beliefs, but both have a more peaceful morality than the other 3 top religions. Yes, maybe the judge is wrong to try to push it down people's throats, but, something has to stop the violence and backsliding morality of our country. Can anyone find any good reason why every one of those Commandments is wrong, except that you should believe in and worhip God? OK, take the first four out, what is wrong with the rest of them? Do you believe it is right to murder people? Do you believe it is right to steal from each other? Do you believe it is wrong to respect your parents? Do you believe it is wrong to sleep with someone who has vowed to be faithful to someone else? Do you believe it is right to covet and therefore entice those who are supposed to belong or be loyal to your neighbor to do your bidding? Do you believe it is right to lie so as to bring harm to others?

To me, these are the tenets of fundamental goodness and if you want to believe that someone other than a Supreme Being formulated this simple framework of rules by which to live, the rules are still valid. Only decadent selfish people care so little about others as to do otherwise with these dictates anyway.

Tiger: Pastor and sole member of the Church of Goodness for Goodness' Sake.

News flash just received via email from CNN:"-- Alabama chief justice suspended pending outcome of ethics complaint for defying court order to move Ten Commandments."

Having spent a good number of years living in Alabama, I can tell you that Moore's view of religion is that of the vast majority--probably 85-90%--of the folks there. Moore was elected to his current position from a lowly municipal judgeship precisely for his rebellious stand on this issue. Further, I'm quite sure Moore fully believes what he's saying. Yes, he's using this for political gain but, no, he's not just telling people what they want to hear.

I disagree with what the man's doing, both because I'm anti-theistic and because, while I don't like the direction the federal courts have moved over the last 50 years or so, such is the rule of law at the moment.

Tiger, we already have a means of letting people know it is wrong to murder and steal - I believe it's called "the law." As for coveting and adultery, well, that's up to parents to explain, not the state. The state should be in the business of protecting me from you and vice versa, not telling me how I should live my private life and private affairs.

Why don't we expand the list to things like "Don't kick puppies" and "Don't gossip" and "Don't laugh at handicapped people" and...etc... it would be an impossible tangle of differing moralities.

Faith, OK let me ask it a different way . Which of the ten do you find not moral? Maybe its just that they are referred to as Commandments that sets people off. As far as I know the only time Jesus ever came right out and issued a commandment it was "love one another" As Elvis Costello said "Whats so funny about peace love and understanding?"

There's a difference between regarding them as not moral or amoral and regarding them as irrelevant, or regarding it as an affront that federal or other public authority is trying to foist them off on you. It's not that God or the idea of Judeo-Christian morality is bothersome, it's just none of their f'in' business how I worship or don't. And the Commandments have a lot more about how you may and may not worship in them than they do about how a responsible citizen behaves.

Moral education should be left to parents, and continuing to encourage the idea that teaching right from wrong is a job for society, with morality to be decided collectively, is pernicious. There is a difference between legal and moral.

FullAuto, which do I find amoral or immoral?

1. You shall have no other Gods besides Me.

I find a non-existent entity demanding I make it my one and only non-existent entity of choice to be immoral, and downright silly.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol.

I find a non-existent being telling me what I can idolize to be immoral, and downright silly. Or perhaps following such a thing is immoral and silly - either way. Irrational at the minimum.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

Why the hell not? Don't tell me what I can say in the privacy of my own home. Somebody get the Judeo-Christian mythGod a copy of the Constitution.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

I remember all the days of the week; important shit happens on each one of them. Sorry, I'm not going to focus on Sunday just because you Christian sinners like to dress up, go to church, and pretend to be better than the rest of us, or Saturday just because Jews say it is important. And damnit, sell booze on Sunday!

5. Honor your father and your mother.

What if they are abusive? Doesn't matter I guess. I find that immoral or amoral; telling children to honor their parents no matter what. Get a slap and I suppose you should say "Thank you ma'am, may I have another?"

6. You shall not murder.

OK, there's one, good secular one with obvious importance to a stable society bonded by some measure of trust. So why do we need it posted under the guise of the 10C? We don't. Having it in the written, approved law of the land is good enough.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

You probably shouldn't, but if you do, it's not the business of the state if consenting adults want to get their funky monkey lovin' on. I find the state dictating what consenting adults can and can't do to be positively absurd.

8. You shall not steal.

See my comments on # 6.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

We do it all the time. Get over it. Yes, honey, that dress looks lovely. Hey, Bill, that new haircut looks great. Did you see what Jim and Jenny were doing, good lord! Of course, lying and gossip aren't good things, but when they don't involve legal matters, it isn't the business of the state. Now go away.

10. You shall not covet.

As has been said already, if you believe that, you're a goddamned socialist or communist, and that's enough to make me think you need your head examined.

And on that note, have a nice night. I think I'll go and curse Yahweh's name while lusting for my neighbor's car and downloading MP3s.

As a Christian, I find Justice Moore's obstinacy more harmful than helpful. I don't try to live my life by the laws of the Old Testament (Nor do most Jews in the US), there has got to be over 400 commandments listed in the first five books of the bible (whoops, just looked it up... over 600)

Jesus made it easy on us. Just two commandments: Love God, love your neighbor. I break these commandments almost every day but am trying.

Christians that concentrate on the Ten Commandments and Old Testament Law are not following Jesus’ example, in my opinion.

On the other side, what kind of loser is intimidated or offended seeing the Ten Commandments? We Americans: atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Taoist etc. are made of stronger stuff. We can ignore these icons...

FA, I defer to the wise and wonderful Andy in answer to your question. He's answered your question better than I would have.

On the other side, what kind of loser is intimidated or offended seeing the Ten Commandments? We Americans: atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Taoist etc. are made of stronger stuff. We can ignore these icons...

JFH, regardless of my religious beliefs or lack thereof, as an AMERICAN I am CONSITUTIONALLY entitled not to have any religion foisted upon me by my government. I'm not intimidated or offended by seeing the 10 Commandments (in fact I watch the movie every year to celebrate my Jewish heritage). But I do have the right to have my government free of those things. That I can ignore them doesn't make it right.

Andy & Faith, OK, take the first few for a minute and put them on hold. I don't care what theological belief you hold. I don't care how you think you or the universe got here. I will assume however that you do care that you do exist. So why can't you interpret the first few as a paen to your existense? I'm willing to accept multiple explanations for creation, just like there's multiple languages that can express the same thoughts. Man, its just a simple moral code of how to live a decent life. And don't try to tell me "do not covet" is some sort of communist bullshit because now you're getting into the realm of fantasy.

Full Auto: you're confusing the package with the contents. The Ten Commandments (never mind all the rest of them, since they really aren't the subject here) are merely the same rules all cultures that want to be civilized and prosperous follow to a greater or lesser degree, and they did so thousands of years before that one particular desert tribe decided to write them down. Commandments to not steal, not murder, to avoid envy and greed, and so on are basic rules of how to live with other people. There wasn't a different way of getting along properly pre-Torah, just a whole lot of strife and rule-breaking, as always. Their being put into a neat codified list and given the Judeo-Christian Deity-approved™ stamp doesn't give them any more or less importance than they had before. And neither does a 5,000-plus statue.

I have a suggestion for Moore: does he own a house? Then let him plant the statue in his own front yard.

How quaint.Psuedo-intellects,atheist and agnostics,oh my.This is not a question of "is there a God?"I personally believe that even the most ardent atheist believes in God at some point in their lives.That is`nt even the point that judge Moore is trying to make and I believe most of you know this.His point is that the Federal Government,in the name of "diversity" over steps its bounds when it tells states what they can and cannot display on public property,and I think he is right in this.
Christianity is the whipping boy for everything and everyone,that`s a FACT.Everyone seems ready and eager to embrace islam,buddah,wiccans,gaia and all manner of beliefs,but Christianity seems to have no place in this compassionate all embracing society.
We as Christians are exhorted to Exhault God and Christ in everything we do.Whether judge Moore is sincere or not he is doing that.If you would bother to take a trip in the way back machine you might recall when this first became an item he said the reason he did it was to settle the issue once and for all.That was about 2 years ago.So? Lets` settle it then.
I write this because the anti-God crowd never seem to look at our side of things.The only examples they seem to remember are the Jim Joneses and SOME Catholic priest,and Jim Bakers,if that is all you know about Christianity then you need to learn more,or you`re just lazy because thats not even research enough to even base an opinion let alone all the chop logic I`ve read.
I like this blog and I like Michele and all you posters but if what I`ve just written pisses you off and you figure you don`t like me, I don`t really care.

His point is that the Federal Government,in the name of "diversity" over steps its bounds when it tells states what they can and cannot display on public property,and I think he is right in this.

Joat, no. The Constitution says that the government shall not make a religious display. And lest you forget the 10 Commandments have Jewish roots, and you're not talking about Judiasm being a "whipping boy" mainly because its persecution doesn't fit with your theories.

I have no problem with any religion, so long as its members, and my government, aren't force-feeding me it. Which, in the end, is Moore's goal, as anyone with business in the courthouse will have to confront his religious beliefs.

Faith, go back about 2 years when the monument was first put in place.There was a buzz about it and what judge Moore said was that he had it put there in hopes of taking the case to the Supreme Court so that the issue of State verses Federal rights in regards to this matter,can finally be settled.
And Jews are persecuted because of their race not their religion.I`m talking about NOW,not 100 or 900 years ago.

""I personally believe that even the most ardent atheist believes in God at some point in their lives."

You are incorrect. My parents believed in giving their children the tools to draw their own spiritual conclusions and then pulling back; I never, ever believed in God. I read the Bible, and other texts. I attended church services. I enjoy theology, but God as you know Him was never any more real to me than Vishnu or Marduk is to you. It is a common misconception that atheists are merely rebelling against God, probably because believers have as much of a problem picturing a worldview in which God is simply not in the picture as unbelievers often do with picturing God and Christ as concrete, personal realities.

I also don't harbor any hostility whatsoever toward Christianity or any other religion. I favor free thought and free expression, which means I don't find religion or the religious threatening or offensive, merely interesting. One thing I HAVE noticed is that, to a man, believers and unbelievers alike, they all feel picked on. This is fine with me; it's said that a good compromise leaves everybody mad. If everyone feels they have cause to complain, then we're probably closer to freedom of religion than is sometimes apparent.

As far as I'm concerned, the question of States' Rights in Constitutional law matters was settled in 1865 and further established during the Reconstruction. Southern states did not have the right to prevent blacks from voting or exercising other civil rights after the Constitution explicitly established them as citizens: states still don't have the right to override the Constitution when they feel like it. I think Judge Moore probably knows this; more likely he's after the publicity.

Christians are mandated to exult God, but I don't recall anything in the Bible OR American history that calls upon them to co-opt earthly authority in order to do it. Moore has proved that in his court, justice is not blind, and all men are not equal before the eyes of the law, and that he hasn't any intent of upholding the law of the land, only the law as he sees it. I haven't any idea about his status as a Christian, but that makes him a very poor judge.

Joat, you are ignorant to call Jews a race. People of all races are Jewish.

Second, I don't care what you think Moore is doing, the fact is that states rights with respect to separation of church and state are what the constitutionally are and nothing will change that. It is one of the basic principles upon which our government rests.

"God exists, and there it lies."

Thomas Paine

One can believe in God, while side-stepping the so called "revealed" religions. For those interested in truly expanding their minds instead of propagating the lesson of the week from Bible study, read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. As well read about the influence of the Enlightenment on some of the foremost thinkers of our nation's founding.

The Declaration of Independence is as venerable a part of our foundation as is the Constitution. I believe in a "Creator", albeit one who is more of a hands off landlord. Everything from those "revealed" religions were written by man...not by God. I refuse to believe that our system of laws are based on flawed reasoning, mysticism, and the wine induced visions of goat herders who lived many millennia ago.

It's time to let go...

Wow...The work that the ACLU has done over the years has really done it's job on you folks. The whole "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause of the 1st Amendment has been bastardized over the years to mean that there shall be absolutely nothing even hinting of religion in anything that the state does. You have to look at the founders context. The entire reason that this country exists is because people left Britain to escape religious persecution at the hand of "The Church of England". Back then it was the CoE or nothing, as MANDATED by the state. The establishment clause is a safety-net against THAT sort of thing. Just having a display of the 10 Commandments in no way states that you MUST be of follower of the Old Testament.

Additionally, the plaque at the Grand Canyon with the saying from Psalms about the beauty of God's works in no way is FORCING you to be a Christian just because it happens to be from the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Now, if Conress got taken over by Muslims, and they declared Shari'a (Islamic Law), where you were required to follow Islam or else face dhimmitude and humiliation (or possibly death), THAT would be against the 1st Amendment.

Please explain to me how the prominent placement of religious law in a secular court of law, an act committed surreptiously at the dead of midnight, followed by rulings clearly based on religious rather than secular law, constitutes a harmless display of reverence akin to the plaque at the Grand Canyon. I'd also love an explanation as to why not getting to exult God in your prescribed manner under a federal, judicial imprimatur constitutes religious persecution.

It's not a mandate that we MUST be of a particular religion. It's a rather blatant declaration that if we are not, we will not recieve equal treatment in that court of law; in effect declaring non-members of the group to be lesser citizens.

I also don't see how the Establishment Clause is so lightly interpreted against "well, only the really EXTREME establishment of a particular religion".

I grew up in the same religious group that old Roy aligns himself with.

I'm trying to figure out if he's read the Big Ten himself. Number two is pretty clear about worshipping graven images.... like statues of the Ten Commandments perhaps?

And how, exactly, did the Ten Commandments become an icon of Christianity? I was taught that Jesus did away with them in favor of a new law.

Faith, I am not a Jew.Most of the world are not Jews.Moses wasn`t a Jew but Issac was.I think you meant that in the context of "Jewish American" or "French Jew".If so I would point out that America and France are not races but countries.To your other point you are talking about the 14th ammendment and it was never intended to be twisted and misconstrued as it is today by previous Supreme Court interpretations.I,personally,take the Bible at face value.I don`t see any hidden meaning in its words.To me it means exactly what I read from it.I have never seen anything written between the lines.Unfortunatly not all people read it that way.Does that mean that I`m a better person than a non-Christian,or a better Christian than any other?No,it doesn`t.
But if someone has convinced themselves that it`s a crock then nothing will convince them otherwise.Conversely,if someone has convinced themselves that what they read is other than what is written nothing will change that either.It`s called Ideology and it applies to everything not just Biblical stuff.

Justice Moore and his supporters are defending a graven image.

Nine out of ten isn't bad, I suppose

Moore's desire to display the TC is not about getting people to be "good", or to remind us of certain facts like "killing people is bad". It's a demonstration of power, or at least perceived power, in that it gives notice to "non-believers" about who's in charge. This is the same mentality behind school praye. To be vulgar, it's basically "my dick is bigger" translated into a religious context.

People like Moore are also adherents to "horizontal prayer", that which is meant for OTHER people to see and be influenced by, as opposed to "vertical prayer", which is a private exercise between an individual and his or her faith. Many Christians cannot limit themselves to the latter simply because it ain't nearly as fun or ego-inflating as the former.

Faith, I am not a Jew.Most of the world are not Jews.Moses wasn`t a Jew but Issac was.

If you are not a Jew, then perhaps you should leave it to the Jews to decide who is and isn't one.

I can assure you that Moses was. Ask your local rabbi.

MY Mistake thinking 1 thing and typing another.What I menat to type was Abraham wasn`t a Jew but Isaac was.And Phil what the hell makes you think I have to be a Jew to know the difference between a Jew and a non Jew?I don`t ,no matter what your mommy or conformist,1 perfect world teachers tell you OK?

Joat, no, I'm not talking about American Jews or French Jews. I'm talking white, black, hispanic, arabic, etc. Jews. There are Jews of all races. Jewish is a RELIGION, not a race.

Faith,I humbly disagree.Judiasim is a religion and you don`t have to be a Jew to practice it.
Being Jewish means being born from a Jewish mother.A Jewish father is preferred but not required.It`s racial,not religious.And I know that Jews are in every nation on earth but again it`s racial not national.I never phrased my statement to mean that Jews are white,or black or anything other than Jewish.
I think you confuse Judiaism with Jewishness.

Phil what the hell makes you think I have to be a Jew to know the difference between a Jew and a non Jew?

I didn't say that, jackass; I said how about letting the Jews decide who are and are not Jews? I'm quite certain, though, that if I chose two random people off the street, you couldn't tell me if either, neither or both were Jews.

In any case, despite the religious and cultural tradition that any child of a Jewish mother is also a Jew -- a tradition whose purpose should be obvious if you think about it for ten seconds -- it is not "racial" any more than Catholicism is "racial." (Catholic bishops, after all, claim authority over all baptised souls in their bishoprics.) Despite the rather unique occurrence of Tay-Sachs among Jews, there is no gene or combination of genes that makes one Jewish, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

What Phil said.

Judiasim is a religion and you don`t have to be a Jew to practice it.

Huh??? What do you call a non-Jew who practices Judiasm? Sounds like a joke waiting for a punchline.

there is a god and im a living witness those who don't agree try a little faith a watch what happen