Author Topic: Enough is Enough! (Read 4356 times)

type_char · « **Reply #30 on:** August 27, 2003, 08:46:49 AM »

Its never enough when your delaing with "religious physcos". I woudlnt want to be anywhere near them.

ra · « **Reply #31 on:** August 27, 2003, 08:51:19 AM »

"Of course, legislation is both created and acted upon within cemetries, affecting how people can pursue their lives and interact with society."

So the government should only be restricted from buying and displaying religious icons if legislation is being done nearby? I haven't heard that distinction being made before.

"A belief system is not specified. Freedom from the influence of organised religion does not neccesarily mean lack of any religion at all."

The people who wrote the constitution also swore oaths of office on the Bible, and had references to God in their state mottos. They didn't think that conflicted with the 1st amendment which they wrote, and no one believed we were living under a theocratic government.

Swearing an oath on the Bible is much more of an endorsement of Christianity than displaying the 10 commandments, which is not specific to Christianity. Yet our system of government survives.

Leftist lawyers do everything they can to secularize all things public. Then, when Bible-thumpers protest, the lefty lawyers declare "See, these are the wackos we are saving you from". I for one am getting sick of lawyers always trying to save me, the Bible-thumpers were never a threat in the first place.

ra

OIO · « **Reply #32 on:** August 27, 2003, 09:07:31 AM »

Bumper sticker I saw the other day:

'You stop praying in our schools and courts and we'll stop thinking in your churches. Its a win-win situation! Deal?'

I agree with beetle's post.

The problem is not that a religious icon is being removed... its that it was in a goverment facility.

I wonder what would happen if instead of removing it, say, a group of hindu's, buddhists,jainists,etc,etc. decided to put 2 ton rock statues of their own dieties or symbols of their religion in the same courthouse.

The government would of course be paying for it and for their maintainance.

Gov. is supposed to represent everyone equally no?

On the other hand, i wonder if those high profiled people in alabama screaming that it should not be removed, I wonder if they would be willing to just MOVE the thing to a privately owned lot of land..even if its in front of the courthouse..and have them pay for its maintainance?

In all honesty, I think their faith and their enthusiasm will literally cease when it hurts their pockets.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #33 on:** August 27, 2003, 09:23:30 AM »

It’s now become a rule of law. The state supreme court and a federal judge said to remove it. Therefore, remove it.

Regardless of the argument we all have to abide by rulings from the judiciary regardless of their subject. If we become complacent with what court orders to the point that we will and will not obey them depending on the subject matter then whose rule of law do we follow?

As you argue that it’s a basic fundamental freedom of speech issue I will argue that the rule of law and order trumps that. A ruling has been made, pure and simple. If the decision is not to your liking then get it argued at the federal Supreme Court level.

Refusal to follow a court order because it doesn’t suit your “beliefs” is a whole other can of worms. I’m sure it would play hell on custody agreements… court rules person A gets custody. Person B disagrees and takes the child anyway.

Why not, a judge in Alabama did it.

Sandman · « **Reply #34 on:** August 27, 2003, 09:31:31 AM »

Home run for the Supreme Court.

Eagler · « **Reply #35 on:** August 27, 2003, 09:36:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Bill and Hillary attended church every Sunday.

"church" is a state of mind

don't think these two were even close

MarkVZ · « **Reply #36 on:** August 27, 2003, 09:48:32 AM »

Eagler,

Just out of curiosity, what would you be saying if the situation were exactly the same, except that 2-ton rock said that God doesn't exist?

I would be just as adamant about removing that, because it too defies the separation of church and state, and it's just not respectful of the beliefs of others.

Would you turn a blind eye, or would you want the atheist rock removed?

Eagler · « **Reply #37 on:** August 27, 2003, 09:56:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MarkVZ
Eagler,

Just out of curiosity, what would you be saying if the situation were exactly the same, except that 2-ton rock said that God doesn't exist?

I would be just as adamant about removing that, because it too defies the separation of church and state, and it's just not respectful of the beliefs of others.

Would you turn a blind eye, or would you want the atheist rock removed?

I would want the judge removed if he did not believe in a Higher Power than himself

midnight Target · « **Reply #38 on:** August 27, 2003, 10:01:48 AM »

Quote

And over 80% of those people are of Judeo-Christian Beliefs. Last time I checked, this place was a democracy, majority rules.

Exactly why we have laws. The measure of a democracy is how well it protects the minority, not how well it serves the majority. The Bill of Rights is not up for a vote Bohdi.

Thank God!

Sixpence · « **Reply #39 on:** August 27, 2003, 10:03:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
I would want the judge removed if he did not believe in a Higher Power than himself

Seeming this judge is ignoring powers higher than himself, maybe you are right.

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #40 on:** August 27, 2003, 10:07:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MarkVZ
Eagler,

Just out of curiosity, what would you be saying if the situation were exactly the same, except that 2-ton rock said that God doesn't exist?

I would be just as adamant about removing that, because it too defies the separation of church and state, and it's just not respectful of the beliefs of others.

Would you turn a blind eye, or would you want the atheist rock removed?

Ok not wanting to nit pick but which God are we talking about here - cause there's quite a few out there....

ra · « **Reply #41 on:** August 27, 2003, 10:07:55 AM »

Quote

The measure of a democracy is how well it protects the minority, not how well it serves the majority.

Which minority? There are about 280 million of them. And democracy happens with voting and legislation, not in front of a judge.

Eagler · « **Reply #42 on:** August 27, 2003, 10:08:40 AM »

it's still in the building

Alabama Ten Commandments Moved from Public View

it still has it's "power" over the judge's judgement

Sixpence · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2003, 10:19:35 AM »

"Rev. Robert Schenck, a spokesman for the protesters who have demonstrated against the removal as an affront to their Christian faith, said a building staff member told him the monument would be moved to an employees-only hallway, where it would not be covered.

It was not clear how long this arrangement would last. "

If these extremists care so much about this monument, why don't they just bring it to their church and put it on display there?

majic · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2003, 10:27:07 AM »

A monument does not make the judge unfair. Maybe he being an bellybutton does, but the decor does not.

And for all those saying "what if it were a Buddhist or monument or a large picture of L Ron Hubbard and John Travolta

", well, that's fine too. Seriously. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says religion and religious things should be forbidden on Gov't land.

It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

To me, it's fairly obvious what the intent was here. The gov't cannot officially endorse a religion, and the citizens may choose any religion (or none) they want.