Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on August 21, 2003, 03:18:33 PM
-
So sad to see a narrow minded person getting so much publicity. He is playing politician now, no doubt working up votes for some planned run for a Governor job or something.
I don't understand why he doesn't understand the principals our country is based, and currently operating on.
Maybe we need the Torah, the Koran and every other religious equivalent to the Bible on display next to his Ten Commandments monument? He basically feels only the religion he believes in should be recognized. He misses the ordered by court concept that no government building should display any religious itmes.
Time for these fanatics to open their eyes and recognize that there are an awful lot of citizens of our country who don't share his beliefs and don't need their "Christian" views shoved in their face.
dago
-
Article I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......
Sounds to me like the federal judge is the one who doesn't undertand the principles of our nations....
-
Anyone in cahoots with a "Show me the Money" Televangelist should be kicked off the bench.
-
How boring!
I agree.... yawn.
-
Originally posted by Dago
So sad to see a narrow minded person getting so much publicity. He is playing politician now, no doubt working up votes for some planned run for a Governor job or something.
Narrowminded implies the person can not see or acknowledge another's point of view. That is not the case here; Judge Moore simply doesn't accept that other point of view. Not the same thing. He could indeed have polictical ambitions at the root of his current stance, or he could be trying to make a statement about what he feels is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Is it not narrowminded of you to assume it is political ambition, rather than a moral belief, that drives him?
I don't understand why he doesn't understand the principals our country is based, and currently operating on.
Again, you can understand another's position without agreeing with it. That's not being narrowminded. Those who cannot "understand" another position are the narrowminded ones.
Maybe we need the Torah, the Koran and every other religious equivalent to the Bible on display next to his Ten Commandments monument? He basically feels only the religion he believes in should be recognized. He misses the ordered by court concept that no government building should display any religious itmes.
You are assuming he would object to someone displaying such a book in a government building. Whether you believe the 10 Commandments were written by a supreme being, or simply by a wise human being, they are a historical text that has had undeniable and pervasive influence on our legal system in this country. Thus, I don't find them out of place in a courthouse. I certainly understand the argument to the countrary, but disagree with it. Also, the whole point of Judge Moore's stance on this may in fact be to force the Supreme Court to re-evaluate the current interpretation of the "seperation of church and state" language in the constitution.
Time for these fanatics to open their eyes and recognize that there are an awful lot of citizens of our country who don't share his beliefs and don't need their "Christian" views shoved in their face.
dago [/B]
"Fanatics" is hardly a fitting title for this man, as far as I can determine. It's a rather harsh brush to paint a man who is standing up for his principle, peacefully and non-violently. The term "shoved in their face" is also a bit of a stretch. It is no more of an affront to a visitor to that building that, say, the bibles place by the Gideons in every hotel room in America. I do however understand why some might misenterpret the display as endorsement by the government of Judian-Christian religion. Would not a simple plaque, explaing that the display was a donated by a citizen, and is place there in acknowledgement of this ancient text's influence on the original genisis of our legal system? Seems a reasonable way to handle things.
-
I kinda wonder how many Christians would be happy to hear their small children had a Jewish teacher who made them learn and say Jewish prayers at school?
Would there Christians happy to hear a Muslim was elected to Governor of their state and decided to erect a monument in the state capital with the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed on them for every to see, while making sure no Christian ideology is displayed?
Maybe in front of City Hall, they could view a display of birth of Mohammed?
I suspect most Christians would not appreciate this very much, so why not understand why other religions don't agree that they should be subjected to the displays of Christianity on government grounds? It is a government of all the people isn't it? No government office is chartered to be Christian government office is it?
I think the best thing we can do as a country and culture of so many believes and values is to respect each others believes and keep all levels of government free of religious influence.
dago
-
It is no more of an affront to a visitor to that building that, say, the bibles place by the Gideons in every hotel room in America.
Hotels are not paid for with Tax dollars and are not run by Government officials. If you do not like having a Bible in your room you have the option to a) call and have the book removed, b) check out of the hotel. Not the same thing.
What if this guy was a Buddist and wanted a Budda there? People would be climbing the walls to get him out. Government buildings should be a Switzerland of religious beliefs. Neutral.
-
I have a couple of different opinions on this matter.
First off, Roy Moore was a circuit judge here in etowah county several years ago. He was known then for havng the ten commandments on the wall of his courtroom at that time. For years we read about the good judge scrapping with the ACLU over this. He gained notoriety and fame here in Alabama. A few years ago, bingo, the ol boy is elected chief justice of the Alabama supreme court. Shortly thereafter, the 2 ton 10 commandments monument is installed in the lobby after midnight one night. The local black demos were pissed and decided they would also have a big banner transscript of MLK's "I have a dream" speech hang near the monument. They were met at the door by state troopers who kicked them out. Not good christian P.R. huh? So, Moores monument has been there at the center of controversy for the past few years.
IMO Roy moore is just a good politician. I don't see how a true christian man could in good faith be the creator of such a divisive controversy. True, jesus an the Aostles were at the center of controversy, but they were preaching, doing some good. The guys not going to save souls by having so many people in an uproar over a granite rock on state property.
But I have to admit there's a side of me that thinks its funny to see so many people pissed at the judge. Why? because he had a rock with some very historical scripture carved into it. Reading it ya know, is VERY offensive if yer not a christian!!:mad:
heh heh :)
-
Originally posted by Dago
I kinda wonder how many Christians would be happy to hear their small children had a Jewish teacher who made them learn and say Jewish prayers at school?
Would there Christians happy to hear a Muslim was elected to Governor of their state and decided to erect a monument in the state capital with the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed on them for every to see, while making sure no Christian ideology is displayed?
Maybe in front of City Hall, they could view a display of birth of Mohammed?
I suspect most Christians would not appreciate this very much, so why not understand why other religions don't agree that they should be subjected to the displays of Christianity on government grounds? It is a government of all the people isn't it? No government office is chartered to be Christian government office is it?
I think the best thing we can do as a country and culture of so many believes and values is to respect each others believes and keep all levels of government free of religious influence.
dago
No, I would definitely object to a public school teacher forcing my child to say jewish prayers in class. I would not object, however, to him (assuming it's a him) wearing the little hat on his own head. I simpy don't equate having this historically importent text on display with "forcing" someone to follow religious practices. Regarding your notional muslum governor, I suppose it would depend. If the saying were historically important to the formation of that state's government, and did not advocate breaking of those laws, then I would have to consider it in the same light as the Moore controversy. Of course, that monument would have to be paid for by that governer, and not taxpayers, and be in good taste :). My personal view (and that's all I can speak for), is that this display (the Commandments), if properly labled as a private donation to acknowlegde the historical importance of the text to our laws, wouldn't violate the constitution.
RPM, you're correct that hotels are private property. My point was that reasonable people don't take offense so easily. I value greatly the diversity of our society. I also believe it revisionist to not acknowledge history, which is what the display is about, in my eyes at least. I would submit that those who brought suit against the Judge for displaying this sculpture are at least as politically driven as the Judge.
By the way, I work in a federally built and maintained building, and keep a bible on my desk in plain view. Should I be required to hide it? Would that not be denying the contribution of my culture to our diverse society? (Waiting for the law suits to hit now)
-
Am i the only one who does not care what he has on his walls.
as long as judges fairly.
I dont care if he has the koran, bible or anyother thing.
judging him by his religion is just as bad as him judging by his own religion.
-
In the Court room the have you swear apon the bible.
In the Bible is the Ten commandments.
Whats the problem?
-
Dago:
Your points about other religions are legitimate. However, that sort of reasoning does not turn the Establishment Clause into something that it was never meant to be (only the dreaded 5 of 9 can--and do--do that).
Besides the obvious fact that the actual language of the Establishment Clause does not support the notion, there are too many examples of Judeo-Christian ideology associated with the (early) United States (e.g., "In God We Trust" (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html), "all men are created equal", etc.) to think that the drafters of the Bill of Rights intended to proscribe displaying the Ten Commandments in a government building. If you look at European history (and you probably have), it is pretty easy to divine what the drafters intended to prohibit. To me, the prospect of seeing a statue of Mohammed in Washington, D.C. is not so scary as having unelected, life-tenured, federal judges treating the Constitution as a "nose of wax," twisted and turned, contorted and distrorted, to conform with their personal morality.
Just my $0.02,
JNOV
-
Maybe I feel differantly than others because I lived in a country where I was constantly exposed to another religion, and where any displays of my religion (I am a Christian) where banned at the threat of prison.
Regardless, I believe that religion has no place in the government, reather the government should be neutral. There is a guaranteed right to freedom of religion, any religion in our country. We should guard this right passionately. Worship in your church, pray, display the Bible in your home, whatever, but for so many reasons a courthouse nor government facility is not the place for it.
Interesting observation about the courts still asking people to swear on the Bible, I seem to remember last time I was in a court, there wasn't a Bible in view, but I think the oath was the same. Maybe that should be changed?
Sure is nice of the Judge to allow the people of Alabama to pay the $5000 daily fine for having the commandments on display, I guess Alabama taxpayers have alot of spare tax money to toss away.
dago
-
From CNN:
"The people of this state elected me as chief justice to uphold our constitution, which established our justice system on invoking the favor and guidance of almighty God," Moore said. "To do my duty, I must acknowledge God. That's what this case is about." 1. You dont have to put your hand on the bible in the courtroom, you can affird (dont have to swear).
What an idiot this guy is. This is absolutely tantamount to taking the law into your own hands. To do his duty, he must acknowledge God? Oh, I'm sorry ... I thought to do your duty, you must acknowedge the law.
Does it REALLY bother me that the Ten Commandments are in the courtroom? No. Would I prefer they not be? Yes. Do I think in a literal and pure sense it is a violation of the Establishment Clause, yes. But this comment that he made above clearly establishes that this is about religion, and it is about keeping religion in the courtrooms and in the schools and in the government.
Couple of general comments addressing posts from above:
1. You dont have to put your hand on the bible in a courtroom. You can affirm in lieu of swearing.
2. Only religious people call the Ten Commandments "Historically important text" ... I call it fiction.
3. "Created" does not have biblical conotations, imho. When you mix blue and yellow, you create green.
4. Clearly modern time is far more complicated than the founding fathers could have anticipated. Christmas, to a large extent, has become a secular holiday ... as has Thanksgiving. Even Easter is becoming a secular holiday in some senses. So there are so many examples of celebrating "religious" holidays wherein it is difficult to separate the religious from the holiday.
5. Personally, I dont understand why we have to have "In God We Trust" on our currency, or the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. I have yet to hear a valid argument that supports the position that both of those examples are not infringing on the Establishment clause, in its purist state.
Just my $.02 :)
Nim
-
Well said Nim.
-
Simply Nimitz because the "Establishment Clause" was not intended to banish religion from public view. It was intended to let people have their own choice of religion without the government mandating or banning them. (i. e.- it lets you call the bible fiction without any censure, because that is the right it gives you.)
BTW- I am not religious at all, I just don't have a problem with people that are.
As far as the what if's? If he wanted to put a plaque up with quotes from the Koran or L. Ron Hubbard, fine by me as long as I don't have to pay for it.
And finally, as for the judges motive's, well he probably does have an agenda and hopefully people will see it for what it is. (agree or not.)
-
majic,
Nobody is trying to ban religion from public view. We simply desire our government to remain studiously neutral in regards to religions.
The moment that people start trying to ban religious symbols from being openly displayed on private property I will be up in arms on the side of the fundamentalist Christians.
However, this is not that case.
-
I listened to him on Hannity today, he had a very valid case.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I listened to him on Hannity today, he had a very valid case.
How? By ignoring most of what the Founding Fathers wrote, or worse, outright distorting it as most fundi Christains do?
-
It seems that many of you guys cannot tell the Federal Constitution from the State one.
The Federal Constitution specifically prevents the Congress from establishing a religion.
The judge in question is Alabama Chief Justice and the building is the Alabama Judicial Building.
If the people of Alabama want to get rid of the Commandments, it's their business, but a federal judge has no right to interfere in internal state matters.
rpm371: Hotels are not paid for with Tax dollars and are not run by Government officials. If you do not like having a Bible in your room you have the option to a) call and have the book removed, b) check out of the hotel. Not the same thing.
What if this guy was a Buddist and wanted a Budda there? People would be climbing the walls to get him out. Government buildings should be a Switzerland of religious beliefs. Neutral.
Are you an resident of Alabama? Then solve your problems withing your state anyway you want to, I don't care.
If not, why do you care how Alabamans prefer to spend their tax dollars?
miko
-
Does anyone here thinks that he would get a fair trail in this judges court ?
I sincerly doubt it. I'm sure that by choosing to affirm rather then swear any poor bastard at mercy of this moron is guaranteeing himself a worst sentence possible.
Historically important ? Hehehe so is santa clause...
What Nimitz said. Heyya nimitz, where you been ? :)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
It seems that many of you guys cannot tell the Federal Constitution from the State one.
The Federal Constitution specifically prevents the Congress from establishing a religion.
The judge in question is Alabama Chief Justice and the building is the Alabama Judicial Building.
If the people of Alabama want to get rid of the Commandments, it's their business, but a federal judge has no right to interfere in internal state matters.
False.
The United States Supreme Court has long ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the States as well as the Federal Government. Think of the utter morass we would have if it were not so. AKA, women vote? (butt out lazs;) ) Sure in California, but not in Alabama or in Oregon you are presumed innocent and cannot be forced to confess but in Massachusetts they can use any torture method they like to get that confession.
Sorry miko2d, you need to read up on your Constitutional law more.
-
Why do people fear christianity?
Afraid there may be a power greater than you and your little ego's just can't handle it
:D :D
-
He's just a stupid redneck ayatollah.
-
Okay, Separation from Church and State?
Then explain to me where the "Left" hand of the newly sworn President is?
Hmmm every coin has "In God We Trust".
The Pledge of Alligence?
Seems the more that America turns away from GOD...never mind, seems to be too touchy of a subject.
I do know one thing, when a man is hurt badly in combat he first cries out to Mom... then to God.
OWN3D!
:D
-
Precedent in the courts has long interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as restricting states from infringing basic rights like those enumerated in the First Amendment, the same as the Bill of Rights restricts the federal govt.
-
Originally posted by rc51
Why do people fear christianity?
Afraid there may be a power greater than you and your little ego's just can't handle it
:D :D
Being on govt property, it can be construed that the govt has taken a position supporting a religion (in this case Christianity).
It's not about whether the Ten Commandments are a good set of rules (they are imho) but the idea of the possibility of infringing the ideal of the separation of Church and State.
Do I object to religious ideals in general? Nope, nothing wrong with moral compasses.
Would I object to govt sponsorship of religions? Yes, Separation of Church and State is a very important ideal. Enough so, to ensure religious freedom in our country.
Would I object to govt intervention into the various religions? Yes, (see reason above).
For those that think it is okay for religious objects to be shown on govt property (being supported by tax dollars) is an okay thing, is it okay for the govt to start taxing the various religions?
How about forcing evolution classes in Sunday school?
Maybe separation of Church and State is a good thing :)
-
Why can't people be happy just having their 'church stuff' in their church?
I think that placing such relics publicly really is a basis and a hope for creating converts and forcing people under a religion.
As far as laws, be it Federal, State, County or Homeowner's Association, it's usually the most *restrictive* that holds relevance.
-
People just look for something to be mad about. They like having their panties in a bunch.
-
wondered when this would come up
-
Hmm, I wonder how many cases this judge has heard where he convicted someone and sentenced them for adultery, or maybe covetting.
Really though, who cares? If anyone was actually that annoyed by the prescence of the ten commandments during their hearing, they could move for a mis-trial (application of religious beliefs being grounds) and get their case transfered to another court. That is, at least as far as I know.
But I'll admit I dont know very much about the state laws of Alabama. :D
-
strange - that the laws that he is sworn to uphold are based on the 10 laws he displays - and ppl have a problem with that?
some ppl have to much time on their hands ...
-
It would be amusing to see the accusations of close minded bigot if it was an 'art' piece depicting say, jesus in a scat orgy, and someone wanted it removed.
You would see the sides immediately reversed, yet it should be the same issue.
-
fatty, you dork. What would jesus in an orgy have to do with law? You do see that the 10 commandments were law, and they're displayed at a court of law?
Man, us alabamians are soo much smarter than you foreigners.
:)
-
Originally posted by Sabre
By the way, I work in a federally built and maintained building, and keep a bible on my desk in plain view. Should I be required to hide it? Would that not be denying the contribution of my culture to our diverse society? (Waiting for the law suits to hit now)
Keeping a bible on your desk is a matter of your right to practice your religion, and a fair warning to others as to who they're dealing with :) I'm sure most of us would have no problem with the Jerdge keeping a 5 ton monolith of the ten commandments on his desk and carrying it home at night to study. Permanently mounting it in the foyer of a government building is quite another thing altogether.
-
Nimitz:
I disagree with you about the connotation of "created," and, in any case, you can find many more specific references to God in the foundational documents of our country. Nonetheless, the point of my post was not to argue the merits of the Alabama case in a contextual vacuum; instead, it was to note that, in my opinion, the "Establishment Clause" can be construed to prevent the display of "religious symbols" on public property only by ignoring (or at least squinting at) its plain meaning and the obvious intent of the drafters. In sum, I flatly disagree with your interpretation of the "Establishment clause, in its purist state."
Fatty:
Very nice move. I wondered how long it would be until someone played the "bigot" card. Now if someone will just post and start spouting about someone being a Nazi, homophobe, or some other leftist Scarlet-Letter label, this post will be complete.
- JNOV
-
Can someone, anyone tell me what law (local, state, or federal) Judge Moore broke when he placed that statue in that state-owned building? As I understand it, he had the authority to make changes to the decor. So, what law did he break? And remember, the legislative branch, and only the legislative branch has the authority to make and change laws. The judicial's job is to determine if those laws are "just" according to the state and/or federal constitutions. So, what law is he being fined for violating?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Can someone, anyone tell me what law (local, state, or federal) Judge Moore broke when he placed that statue in that state-owned building? As I understand it, he had the authority to make changes to the decor. So, what law did he break? And remember, the legislative branch, and only the legislative branch has the authority to make and change laws. The judicial's job is to determine if those laws are "just" according to the state and/or federal constitutions. So, what law is he being fined for violating?
He violated the "establishment" clause of the 1st amendment, and he may have arguably violated the "free excercise" clause through the possible intimidation of religious practices of those who are not Christian.
-
he had the authority to make changes to the decor.
To say this is a "stretch" is to call Mt Everest a hill.
dago
-
The ignorance of the First Amendment displayed in this thread borders on astonishing.
And anyone who can't see the tangible difference between a poster with the Ten Commandments mounted on a courtroom wall and a 2.5 ton monolith celebrating it in the court's lobby needs a reality check.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Why do people fear christianity?
We don't, but we fear people who wish to force their will and believes on others.
You know, those who cannot understand that there are those who are not Christians, there are those who still believe in the intent of the Founding Fathers, who hold the Constitution and Bill of Rights in high regard.
I don't fear Christianity, but I have seen what happens when religion invades government. I have seen what people will do when someone does not share their "beliefs".
One of the greatest prinicipals of our country is the freedom to worship in the manner and to the God of your own choosing, without government interference. Allowing Christians to impose their ideology and institute their symbols in our government has dangers well beyond the comprehension of many people.
Some of the worst historical footnotes in our countries past involve those who were so sure they were right, think Salem Witch Trials and the McCarthy hearings.
dago
-
I think what is most important for our country is that there be no absolutes and that only laws which serve that end should be enacted.
I'm certain the founding fathers intended that this nation be rooted by the belief in one's own personal wisdom and not that of some silly god written of in an old book. Who needs that basis when human history itself shines of mans ability to rise above himself and do what is just.
If we all keep trying and fight the good fight, it won't take much longer for the US to be just like much of the rest of our world and that is what will serve humanity...one big pot full of formless grey soup, all directed by the great wisdom of man himself.
Long live Man and his unfailing wisdom.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
And anyone who can't see the tangible difference between a poster with the Ten Commandments mounted on a courtroom wall and a 2.5 ton monolith celebrating it in the court's lobby needs a reality check.
There is an obvious "tangible difference," but it's not clear to me why that difference has any legal significance.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
The ignorance of the First Amendment displayed in this thread borders on astonishing.
And, just so we can clear up any "astonishing ignorance," let's just go ahead and quote the First Amendment in its entirety:
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.
Wow! Now that I see the whole thing there in black and white, it is perfectly obvious that displaying the Ten Commandments in a Federal Courthouse violates the prohibition against Congress making laws respecting the establishment of religion. Silly me.
-
just wondering how many of the crowd who wants to see this display go are in favor of removing the practice of one swearing on a bible or to God in any court?
I think most if not all ... sad
-
He violated the "establishment" clause of the 1st amendment…
Ah, now we come to the crux of the problem, i.e. Article I reads:
Amendment I
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.
This comes down to states’ rights and the usurping of power by the judiciary. Karnak argues above that:
The United States Supreme Court has long ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the States as well as the Federal Government.
While this article was aimed squarely and explicitly at the federal government, i.e. the US Congress, it has indeed been interpreted to apply to all levels of government. It was meant to limit the power of the federal government (and through application, to local and state governments) by preventing them from making laws that either establishes a government religion, or to make laws that deny individuals the right to practice the religion of their choice. Neither of those has occurred, at the local, state or federal level. What has occurred is that the judiciary branch of the federal government has made law, rather than interpret it. They have further usurped the state’s right to determine on their own the rightness or wrongness of Judge Moore’s actions. The fact that our currency and our oaths of office include the word “God”, as well as our founding documents (“all men are endowed by their creator”), clearly points to the judiciary as fundamentally making something a crime in this instance that is not under parallel circumstances. To the best of my knowledge, there is no federal or state law that says the word “God” cannot appear on government property (state of federal). Indeed federal regulation stipulates that the words “In God we trust” appear on our currency.
MT states,
he may have arguably violated the "free exercise" clause through the possible intimidation of religious practices of those who are not Christian.
It appears your saying that making someone uncomfortable when walking into this building is the same as preventing (by passing of laws) that person from exercising their right to religious freedom. This is a week argument at best, IMO.
To say this is a "stretch" is to call Mt Everest a hill.
dago
Why? I’m talking about décor in general, not this specific item. If there were some written rule or regulation Judge Moore violated, he would have been cited for that; he has not. Instead, he was sued by private citizens for “infringing” on their rights by putting an item they objected to on public display. Are you saying that if he wanted to put a painting on the wall, or a vase of flowers next to the door, that he didn’t have the authority within the courthouse to do so? If so, I believe you’re wrong.
Respectfully,
-
some ppl have to much time on their hands ...
Had Judge Moore's name been Muhammed, and the carved monument in question been the laws of the Koran, can you imagine how many christians would have "Too much time on their hands" at this moment? ;)
Christians are hypocrites. They are only supporting this monument because it supports their particular religion, whereas the people supporting the separation between church and state would've opposed any religious monument from any religion.
-
banana, I couldn't agree more.
-
I completely disagree.
as long as the government is not mandating or even preferring people to tell there religious beliefs.
i have no problem with it.
I don't care if they have the Koran, bible or even a dancing Buddha there. it shows to me that they are human.
as long as they base there desision on the law, and not there faith in god.
he should be able to keep the commandments up
people get worked up over everything.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Wow! Now that I see the whole thing there in black and white, it is perfectly obvious that displaying the Ten Commandments in a Federal Courthouse violates the prohibition against Congress making laws respecting the establishment of religion. Silly me.
Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment. See, for example, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Justice Black wrote that, "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." He continues: "[The First Amendment] requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers."
Erecting a 2.5 ton monument to a religious document, at the exclusion of all other religions, violates this definition of government's responsibilities under the First Amendment. Moore clearly was not creating a religious marketplace of ideas in his courthouse.
See also Justice Black's opinion in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). In it he concludes that when "the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain."
Justice Clark refines this view more in Abington School District v. Schempp, 375 U.S. 203 (1963). He contends that "to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion." Can you honestly argue that Moore's primary purpose in displaying the monument was secular? His own words don't suggest so.
From this comes the famous "Lemon Test" that arises out of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Chief Justice Burger identifies three "main evils" against which the Establishment Clause serves to protect: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." Three tests measure compliance with the Establishment Clause. First, "a statute must have a secular legislative purpose." Next, "its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion." And finally, "the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'"
The Lemon Test has undergone modification over time, particularly in the 1990s, but its main tenet still remains: that government must act in a neutral manner toward religion, neither promoting nor attacking any religion through its laws and actions. Thus legislatures may engage in an optional morning prayer with non-denominational speakers or rotating denominations. And, as well, government representatives such as Judge Moore may not publicly display, at taxpayer expense and on taxpayer-funded property, a monument that clearly favors one religion over another. If he desires to put the monument in his private quarters, then that's well within his rights. I hope he has room to fit it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Todd is a superstar.
-
Damn Dead Man.
No one can argue with this man's post.
Dead Man, you have your ducks in an extremely straight row.
-
Originally posted by banana
Had Judge Moore's name been Muhammed, and the carved monument in question been the laws of the Koran, can you imagine how many christians would have "Too much time on their hands" at this moment? ;)
Christians are hypocrites. They are only supporting this monument because it supports their particular religion, whereas the people supporting the separation between church and state would've opposed any religious monument from any religion.
if this counrty was founded on those beliefs, Islam, I do not think we'd have a problem with it as the majority would not be christian nor would our laws be based on the 10 commandments
-
just wondering how many of the crowd who wants to see this display go are in favor of removing the practice of one swearing on a bible or to God in any court?
If you do not believe, then swearing on the Bible is akin to swearing on the book of Peter Cottontail or the Tooth Fairy or Leprachauns. "So help me Tooth Fairy."
People, you have churches...keep your church stuff there!
-
f this counrty was founded on those beliefs, Islam, I do not think we'd have a problem with it as the majority would not be christian nor would our laws be based on the 10 commandments
Interesting that some declare our country to have been founded on Christianity, when you won't find the word "God", nor "Christian" in any form in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
I found this an interesting read:
Now it is my turn: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Numerous newspaper articles, magazine reports, and books, as well as a multitude of radio and TV shows, repeat the First Amendment's religion clauses and then distort what those clauses say with a repeated assertion that the Establishment Clause refers only to a national religion, a state church, or a single denomination. I am going to destroy that narrow definition.
I am hereby challenging (1) the underinformed newspersons and commentators who ignore Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as if those two did not know about what they were talking and (2) the undereducated history revisionists who reword the Establishment Clause to suit themselves and who trash the members of the First Congress who drafted and approved the religion clauses as if they were not capable of writing and saying what they meant.
In 1787 (two years before the First Amendment was drafted), the Founding Fathers perfectly expressed the principle of separation between religion and government in clearly stated terms: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Constitution, Art. 6., Sec. 3.).
Under the United States every citizen has a right to hold public office regardless of religious affiliation or persuasion. It does not make any difference if that person is Buddhist, Jewish,
Muslim, Hindu, Christian, or atheist; there will be "no religious Test." That is the exact wording as drafted by the Founders and approved by the states. How much more specifically could the Constitution have stated the position of the American people in regard to separation between religion and government?
Yet, in 1787, that strong constitutional statement was not enough to satisfy everyone. The persons who promoted adoption of the Constitution had to promise a further guarantee related to separation between religion and government would be added to the Constitution as a part of a Bill of Rights.
In 1789 a six member joint Senate-House conference committee was given responsibility for finalizing amendments. Congressman Madison was a cochairman of that committee. Madison, in September of 1789, reported to the House an agreement as to the wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. The wording was accepted by the Senate on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the states on December 15, 1791 (Bill of Rights Day).
As originally drafted, the First Amendment applied only to Congress. Congress was given no authority to establish religion of any kind. It was not an oversight by the Founding Fathers who wrote or by the Americans who approved the Constitution that the words "God," "Christianity," "christian principles," and "judeo-christian heritage" are not in the Constitution. In 1797 there was no misunderstanding when President John Adams signed a treaty --read and ratified by the U.S. Senate (in the English language)-- with Tripoli which in Article 11 declares: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" (Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America, 2:365).
On January 1, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson deliberately defined the religion clauses, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, by asserting that "the legitimate powers of
government reach actions only, & not opinions . . . thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" (Library of Congress, LC 20593-20594).
In 1811 President and Founder James Madison specifically applied the meaning of the Establishment Clause as he vetoed two bills passed by Congress. On February 21 Madison vetoed a bill that would have involved, in violation of the Establishment Clause, the government in matters related to an Episcopal church in Alexandria because "governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions"; and, on February 28 Madison vetoed another bill which, in violation of the Establishment Clause, would have donated a parcel of land to a Baptist church in Mississippi Territory because the bill "comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of
religious societies" (James D. Richardson, Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1:489-490).
Nevertheless, the word "national" was specifically rejected by the 1789 conference committee and obviously does not appear in the Establishment Clause. Thus, in one sentence I will destroy the "national" religion distortion: common sense and proper English require the word "thereof" in the Free Exercise Clause refer to and mean the same thing as the Establishment Clause! "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise" of a governmentally established national religion, a state church, or a single denomination? Give me a break. The word "religion" means religion--the broad definition--in both clauses.
In other words, how do I define what "religion" means in the Establishment Clause? Very simply, it means exactly whatever "thereof" means in the Free Exercise Clause and whatever "religious" means as used by the Founding Fathers in Article 6., Section 3., of the Constitution. The words of the Constitution are not in conflict.
To paraphrase unitarian John Adams in his rejection of trinitarianism: Howl, snarl, bite, you flaming liberal revisionists who change the words of the Constitution to fit your misguided
agenda. You say I am in error, but I reply you are no conservative strict constructionist--and there you lose (restated from The Works of John Adams, 10:67, 1813).
Readers who wish to study the issue should read the classics in the field of religion and government: James Madison's 1785 "Memorial and Remonstrance," Thomas Jefferson's 1786 "Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty," H. J. Eckenrode's Separation of Church and State in Virginia (1910), Leo Pfeffer's Church, State, and Freedom (1967), and Leonard W. Levy's The Establishment Clause (1986).
Copyright 1996 Gene Garman
Source: http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/clause.html
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Thus legislatures may engage in an optional morning prayer with non-denominational speakers or rotating denominations. And, as well, government representatives such as Judge Moore may not publicly display, at taxpayer expense and on taxpayer-funded property, a monument that clearly favors one religion over another. If he desires to put the monument in his private quarters, then that's well within his rights. I hope he has room to fit it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Denominations of christianity?
A cover-all-religion prayer isn't possible seeings how they have different gods. :)
The monument was financed with private money.
Sorry todd :D
-
Originally posted by hblair
The monument was financed with private money.
Sorry todd :D
In a building financed and used by public.
Sorry hblair
:D
-
DMF:
I am familiar with First Amendment jurisprudence, including the cases that you cited. (Your post contained a very well-written synopsis, by the way.) That does not mean that I agree with it or that I believe that it embodies a legitimate "interpretation" of the First Amendment. (Of course, I recognize that it is the law, notwithstanding my dissent.) The point is that the Supreme Court's "construction" of the First Amendment finds scant, if any, support in the plain text of the Amendment or in the intent of those who drafted it. The object of quoting the language of the Amendment in its entirety was to make that disconnect clear.
If the meaning of the Constitution is not tied to its text, the document can be twisted whichever way is required to suit the purposes of the federal judiciary. Although I think the Supreme Court's perversion of the First Amendment is severe, it probably is not its most glaring such error. For example, when it served its purposes, the Court constucted from whole cloth the notions of "right of privacy" and "substantive due process."
The bottom line is that when we (read: 5 of 9 unelected, life-tenured Justices) uncouple the legal effect of the Constitution from the plain meaning of its text, we head towards the slipperiest of slopes.
-
Very interesting thread. Who would've thought there were so many well-read and informed among the rude, bellicose, belligerent horde that seem to rule channel 1 on any given night in Aces High.
There's hope, yet.
-
Originally posted by rc51
Why do people fear christianity?
Afraid there may be a power greater than you and your little ego's just can't handle it
:D :D
Actually I don't fear Christianity at all...it is a wonderful fairy tale.
However, I do fear those followers of Christianity who would attempt to persuade me against my wishes that I should change my mind and submit to their god concept. And I fear the way in which they go about doing this, and I especially fear their use of government to try and evangelize to me and lets be real...the man's intent was not to show the historocity of the Commandments...it is to evangelize. I fear their use of goverment to evangelize because I know that is the most dangerous slippery slope...one that leads to an eventual theocracy of they type that exists in Iran and existed in Afghanistan. I completely fail to understand how any American who believes in the Constitution of the United States and freedom of religion could ever support these Christian Taliban.
-
crowMAW, you state the danger well.
The "fairy tale" comment was funny, but as I stated before, I am a Christian.
You stated better than I could exactly what I have tried to make understood. Those who have not looked outside their own backyard sometimes don't realize the danger in their thinking.
dago
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Christian Taliban.
That's a bit over-the-top, don't you think? Even if one accepts your reasoning, that's akin to calling Jessie Jackson Adolph Hitler.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
strange - that the laws that he is sworn to uphold are based on the 10 laws he displays - and ppl have a problem with that?
I keep hearing that, but I don't understand...if US law and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on the Ten Commandments, then how come it's a legally protected right to break so many of them?
1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Humm, First amendment protects us on this one. We can worship whom ever or what ever we want. Or, we don't have to worship anything if we don't want too.
2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Nope, we have a legally protected right to do this too, and to copyright it too if I want.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
Sorry, we have a legal right to freedom of speech.
4) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Nope, we don't have to keep the Sabbath holy...I can do what ever I please on Sunday...or Saturday.
5) Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee
Nope, you can sue mommy and daddy for everything they are worth if you think they were crappy parents. And you can bad mouth them all you want and write nasty books about them too.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
Ok, I'll give 'em this one if you define "kill" as murder. Obviously, if it means homicide of any kind, well the government looks past that Commandment many times.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery
Ok...in some states it is illegal (maybe even in Alabama), but it's not illegal in all of them and I don't know of a Federal law that makes it illegal either. And then we must ask if the law is enforced if it is on the books. It sure ain't in Florida or my low-down cheating ex-wife would be in prison right now.
8) Thou shalt not steal.
Yup...so we are up to 2 out of 10.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Well, this one is another fuzzy one. If you commit perjury, then yes it is a crime. If you tell a lie about someone and it causes no economic damage to them, then the civil courts will do nothing. So, if I say that Rude is the worst AH pilot who ever logged in...I would be lying, but there ain't a damn thing Rude can do about it but send my bellybutton down in flames the next time we merge.
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's
Nope, you have a legal right to covet what ever you want. And man my neighbors wife has the nicest ass...I want to ride that bellybutton so bad...and I really want his Ferrari too, bastard has a 360 Spyder. Come arrest me.
So out of 10 Commandments we have two for-sure laws...murder and theft. Do you think maybe those laws have existed elsewhere in society before the 10 Commandments were zapped in stone?
-
Originally posted by Nath[BDP]
Todd is a superstar.
Maybe.... but every time I hear the name Todd I think of "YES MRS. LOOPNER"
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I keep hearing that, but I don't understand...if US law and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on the Ten Commandments, then how come it's a legally protected right to break so many of them?
1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Humm, First amendment protects us on this one. We can worship whom ever or what ever we want. Or, we don't have to worship anything if we don't want too.
2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Nope, we have a legally protected right to do this too, and to copyright it too if I want.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
Sorry, we have a legal right to freedom of speech.
4) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Nope, we don't have to keep the Sabbath holy...I can do what ever I please on Sunday...or Saturday.
5) Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee
Nope, you can sue mommy and daddy for everything they are worth if you think they were crappy parents. And you can bad mouth them all you want and write nasty books about them too.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
Ok, I'll give 'em this one if you define "kill" as murder. Obviously, if it means homicide of any kind, well the government looks past that Commandment many times.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery
Ok...in some states it is illegal (maybe even in Alabama), but it's not illegal in all of them and I don't know of a Federal law that makes it illegal either. And then we must ask if the law is enforced if it is on the books. It sure ain't in Florida or my low-down cheating ex-wife would be in prison right now.
8) Thou shalt not steal.
Yup...so we are up to 2 out of 10.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Well, this one is another fuzzy one. If you commit perjury, then yes it is a crime. If you tell a lie about someone and it causes no economic damage to them, then the civil courts will do nothing. So, if I say that Rude is the worst AH pilot who ever logged in...I would be lying, but there ain't a damn thing Rude can do about it but send my bellybutton down in flames the next time we merge.
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's
Nope, you have a legal right to covet what ever you want. And man my neighbors wife has the nicest ass...I want to ride that bellybutton so bad...and I really want his Ferrari too, bastard has a 360 Spyder. Come arrest me.
So out of 10 Commandments we have two for-sure laws...murder and theft. Do you think maybe those laws have existed elsewhere in society before the 10 Commandments were zapped in stone?
thanks for the snapshot of what is wrong with today's enlightenment or the lack thereof
-
Originally posted by fd ski
In a building financed and used by public.
Sorry hblair
:D
I made that clear in my first reply.
Sorry FD-Ski :D
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I keep hearing that, but I don't understand...if US law and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on the Ten Commandments, then how come it's a legally protected right to break so many of them?
1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Humm, First amendment protects us on this one. We can worship whom ever or what ever we want. Or, we don't have to worship anything if we don't want too.
2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Nope, we have a legally protected right to do this too, and to copyright it too if I want.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
Sorry, we have a legal right to freedom of speech.
4) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Nope, we don't have to keep the Sabbath holy...I can do what ever I please on Sunday...or Saturday.
5) Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee
Nope, you can sue mommy and daddy for everything they are worth if you think they were crappy parents. And you can bad mouth them all you want and write nasty books about them too.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
Ok, I'll give 'em this one if you define "kill" as murder. Obviously, if it means homicide of any kind, well the government looks past that Commandment many times.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery
Ok...in some states it is illegal (maybe even in Alabama), but it's not illegal in all of them and I don't know of a Federal law that makes it illegal either. And then we must ask if the law is enforced if it is on the books. It sure ain't in Florida or my low-down cheating ex-wife would be in prison right now.
8) Thou shalt not steal.
Yup...so we are up to 2 out of 10.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Well, this one is another fuzzy one. If you commit perjury, then yes it is a crime. If you tell a lie about someone and it causes no economic damage to them, then the civil courts will do nothing. So, if I say that Rude is the worst AH pilot who ever logged in...I would be lying, but there ain't a damn thing Rude can do about it but send my bellybutton down in flames the next time we merge.
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's
Nope, you have a legal right to covet what ever you want. And man my neighbors wife has the nicest ass...I want to ride that bellybutton so bad...and I really want his Ferrari too, bastard has a 360 Spyder. Come arrest me.
So out of 10 Commandments we have two for-sure laws...murder and theft. Do you think maybe those laws have existed elsewhere in society before the 10 Commandments were zapped in stone?
The Ten Commandments are God's Law, not man's....I'm sure God fears our constitution.
This is simple guys....it's about secular society versus christian society.....the folks that have a problem with this don't believe in God or at least the God of the Bible for the most part. The Christians believe that this nation is falling away from God's teaching and is dying spiritually and morally.
For me(a Christian), I could care less about this statue or what they do with it. It's simple to me....
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God, what is God's.
Even Christians are subject to the laws of this nation...we are subject to those in authority over us. Now, when the day comes that the government tells me that I must bow down and worship it, then that will be the day I stand against it.
This whole episode is pathetic.
-
Originally posted by banana
Christians are hypocrites. They are only supporting this monument because it supports their particular religion, whereas the people supporting the separation between church and state would've opposed any religious monument from any religion.
Do you mean ALL christians support roy moores monument and therefore are hypocrites or just the 20-30 or so at the state capitol? I personally don't know anybody who even backs him and I'm in the middle of the bible belt in the state in question.
-
Agreed Rude. You made your stance on the "nay" side and you know it. Religion is a choice, not to be imposed by man. I would be ashamed if anyone in my province was forced to come before a judge under the pretence (sp) of any religion.
I think part of being a "real" Christian is respecting other's beliefs. A 5000 pound rendition of the ten commandments as someone is entering a institution of your government is not respecting the diverse and segmented portion of your culture that is part of your fine country.
Again, accepting God and his Son is a personal choice, and can't be mandated by a court.
-
Some of you keep referring to the Ten Commandments as being Chrisitan. You do realize that it was Moses that brought them down from the mountain, right? While I'm not Jewish I do believe that Jews consider them theirs and even muslims honor these same "laws".
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
That's a bit over-the-top, don't you think?
No sir, I don't. I believe that Christian Taliban is a very accurate description of how fundie xians are operating in this country and it is my perception as to how they would run the US should they have control of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our government.
We have already seen that extremists exist within their ranks who are willing to use violence and murder in furtherance their objective of forcing their beliefs and morals on the rest of us. I've even had one fundie on an xian forum tell me that she believes that non-xians should never be allowed to be in a position of governance over xians.
Beyond all the sophistry and justifications, the underlying reason for xians to refuse to allow the religious neutrality of our government is for the purpose of evangelizing and ultimately to impose their moralistic values. I find that no less disgusting and morally reprehensible as the actions of the Taliban.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Some of you keep referring to the Ten Commandments as being Chrisitan. You do realize that it was Moses that brought them down from the mountain, right? While I'm not Jewish I do believe that Jews consider them theirs and even muslims honor these same "laws".
Are you trying to say that Moses and The Angel Gabriel werent American? :mad:
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Some of you keep referring to the Ten Commandments as being Chrisitan. You do realize that it was Moses that brought them down from the mountain, right? While I'm not Jewish I do believe that Jews consider them theirs and even muslims honor these same "laws".
Don't matter. The judiciary should be religion neutral.
-
Originally posted by banana
Had Judge Moore's name been Muhammed, and the carved monument in question been the laws of the Koran, can you imagine how many christians would have "Too much time on their hands" at this moment? ;)
Christians are hypocrites. They are only supporting this monument because it supports their particular religion, whereas the people supporting the separation between church and state would've opposed any religious monument from any religion.
You are correct sir. These guys actually are hypocrits and could be construed as bigots as well.
Within a few months after the monolith was in place, some of the black pot stirrers in Alabama had a similar monolith constructed with MLK's "I have a dream" speach written on it. As I think has been already covered briefly, they were met at the door by state police saying they couldn't "redecorate" the building under any circumstances. How many of you think Moore wasn't behind this?
If you think about it, regardless of who was aggitating this, the MLK monolith is much more appropriate to install in a court building than the 10 kommandmants. Regardless of what the civil rights movement has become, a monument to MLK says allot more about the rule of law and justice in America than a list of 10 laws used by a bunch of goat herders in dealing amongst themselves but that got conveniently set aside when dealing with anyone not of there tribe. (we wacked this village and took all the chicks as slaves, we whacked that village and killed them all down the the last man, woman and child...etc. etc.)
This is how Moore got elected as Chief Justice. The original controversy over the 10 kommandments plaque in his court room made him a household name in Alabama.
What miffs me is that anyone with any intelligence would not only let him get away with it, but support him whole heartedly, to the point of getting arrested over it.
The abscence of the monolith in the court house would in no way infringe on anyones beliefs or practices, but its presence not only offends many people, but is garunteed to produce sharp conflict. Its another huge black eye on the face of Alabama, painting them as the backwards ass, religious zealot, cross burning retards of the nation. Sometimes I'm not sure that its not a deserved reputation.
Just when we get things moving in the right direction. We've recently gotten 3 major automobile plants in Alabama with most of there supporting industry building here as well. Mercedece-Benz being one of them. Unemeployment is very low, incomes are rising. Education in most parts of the state aren't the tragedy most make it out to be.
What happens? We get a Republican Governor who insists on raising almost every form of taxation in the state while in bed with the state teachers union. Who lies his bellybutton off about what the taxes actually go for and make blanket statements about accountability and about college scholorships that are so far from the truth its unreal.
What next? A friggin knut case Cheif Justice who thinks he's the next appostle.
Politics Sux!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if this counrty was founded on those beliefs, Islam, I do not think we'd have a problem with it as the majority would not be christian nor would our laws be based on the 10 commandments
Who the hell says our laws are based on the 10 commandments? Show me the money.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I find that no less disgusting and morally reprehensible as the actions of the Taliban.
Either you have no idea how the Taliban operated in Afghanistan or you have no experience relating to fundamental Christians. How can you compare oppressing women to the point of public execution for bad cooking to denying an adolescent daughter cosmetics? Please elaborate.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
That's a bit over-the-top, don't you think? Even if one accepts your reasoning, that's akin to calling Jessie Jackson Adolph Hitler.
Actually, he's closer to Stalin. He uses fear and intimidation to enrich himself and his cronies, while under the guise of helping the black man. Oh, thats another thread, but you brought it up.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment.
-- Todd/Leviathn
I taught +Dead everything he knows:}
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Beyond all the sophistry and justifications, the underlying reason for xians to refuse to allow the religious neutrality of our government is for the purpose of evangelizing and ultimately to impose their moralistic values. I find that no less disgusting and morally reprehensible as the actions of the Taliban.
No true Christian (What's up with "xian" anyway? Are you trying to be offensive?) would ever seek to impose his or her "moralistic values" on anyone. Didn't Jesus wash the feet of the prostitute by the well?
Having said that, realize that we cannot exist in a moral vaccuum. The morals--i.e., the rules, laws, etc.--by which we govern ourselves and restrain our behavior have to come from somewhere. The alternative is anarchy.
Don't you think that those who seek to obliterate all traces of our Judeo-Christian heritage and its attendant concept of morality have their own "moralistic values" that they seek to impose? You may think that that's alright, because, you figure, those values don't derive from religion. Well, if that thought comforts you, fine. But I've met few Christians as religious and militant about their beliefs as many on the political left are about theirs. In my experience, "believers" in Darwinism, Marxism, Radical Environmentalism, Radical Feminism, PC"ism", etc. have much more faith and are much more fervent than your average Methodist.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
DMF:
."
The bottom line is that when we (read: 5 of 9 unelected, life-tenured Justices) uncouple the legal effect of the Constitution from the plain meaning of its text, we head towards the slipperiest of slopes.
Actually the bottom line is that the document is a living thing. It was written in a way that does allow for interpretation.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Either you have no idea how the Taliban operated in Afghanistan or you have no experience relating to fundamental Christians. How can you compare oppressing women to the point of public execution for bad cooking to denying an adolescent daughter cosmetics? Please elaborate.
Actually I have a great deal of experience with fundies. I live in the Bible belt and have dealt with them nearly all my life both personally and professionally (including the boss who asked me on my first day if I was xian--I was able to give an inconclusive and vague answer--and who then spent the rest of my time at that job making my life hell after she learned several months later that I was not...btw, that was a government job). My best friend became a JW several years ago and we have had a standing weekly meeting to talk apologetics since he "came out" (I subject myself to this willingly as we both enjoy the debate). I also am a regular on CARM.org and have been jousting with xians for several years there.
As far as understanding the capability that fundies have--any fundies, xian or otherwise--of committing atrocities, I need only look at history to see that fundamentalism leads to intolerance and intolerance leads to violence against those who do not share the same religious views. Do you really want me to list the atrocities carried out by Christians that equal those of the Taliban? Do you really believe that a theocratic US governed by fundies would be anymore enlightened? If so, you have not had enough experience with the intolerance of fundamentalists that I have had.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Actually the bottom line is that the document is a living thing. It was written in a way that does allow for interpretation.
I don't know about your assessment of the Constitution as a "living thing." I agree, however, that it, like any legal document, must be interpreted. But, there is a huge difference between interpreting the Constitution's text and just making it up as you go along. That is, when you interpret a documnent, the text of the document has to provide a basis for your interpretation. The Supreme Court has long since stopped interpreting the Constitution. What it does is interpret its prior interpretations of the Constitution. This allows for a completely relativistic interpretive system, under which "never" can ultimately be construed to mean "always."
This approach, in my opinion, violates the separation of powers upon which our system is based. Congress is to make law, not the judiciary. If enough people think that "always" should mean "never," however, the Constitution can be changed to reflect that. In that sense, it is a "living document." That is, the Constitution expressly provides a mechanism by which it can be changed: But that mechanism is amendment, not judicial activism.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
No true Christian (What's up with "xian" anyway? Are you trying to be offensive?) would ever seek to impose his or her "moralistic values" on anyone. Didn't Jesus wash the feet of the prostitute by the well?
First let me apologize for the abbreviation...I'm not trying to be offensive. It is a common contraction on some of the religious forums that I frequent. I will try to remember not to use it here.
The comment on "no true Christian" opens a can of worms that has been debated ad infinitum elsewhere. But the crux is...even Christians have a hard time defining what criteria to use to determine a "true Christian" or how a "true Christian" would behave. So, now my question to you LoneStar is, what would Jesus say about this situation? Would He approve of Moore's behavior? Would Jesus want governments to be used for the purpose of evangelizing or would Jesus prefer that people come to Him of their own volition and free will?
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Having said that, realize that we cannot exist in a moral vaccuum. The morals--i.e., the rules, laws, etc.--by which we govern ourselves and restrain our behavior have to come from somewhere. The alternative is anarchy.
The laws do have to come from somewhere. But is it not possible to limit legislation such that there is no intrusion upon my liberty to engage in practices that, while doing no harm to anyone else, may not be approved by religious authorities? Is there a danger of legislation to be created based on religious dogma whose only purpose is to coerce individuals to conform to that dogma and ads no value to the goal of protecting individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I believe there are a set of laws that can and have been enacted that are limited to protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and limit the ability of other individuals to infringe upon my rights. Those laws do not encourage anarchy. And those laws may be considered moral by religious authorities.
Conversely, it is possible to have laws which only coerce religious dogma which are considered moral by religious authorities, but they are unnecessary and do not create more order or less anarchy and restrict individual liberty.
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Don't you think that those who seek to obliterate all traces of our Judeo-Christian heritage and its attendant concept of morality have their own "moralistic values" that they seek to impose?
You overstate the situation. There are many who would like to obliterate all traces of our Judeo-Christian heritage from government only. Of the non-theists who are supporters of the US Constitution that I've associated with over the years, I've yet to meet one who had any desire to impose their non-theistic views on individuals via government...and most would not evangelize non-theism in any way form or fashion. A secular and religion-neutral government does not tell you that God does not exist...nor does it tell you that God does exist. It allows each individual to make that determination on their own without any interference what so ever from the coercive authority that is government. Do you really feel it is necessary for government to evangelize Christianity via our pledge, money, and 2 ton monuments in our courthouses?
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I need only look at history to see that fundamentalism leads to intolerance and intolerance leads to violence against those who do not share the same religious views. Do you really want me to list the atrocities carried out by Christians that equal those of the Taliban? Do you really believe that a theocratic US governed by fundies would be anymore enlightened? If so, you have not had enough experience with the intolerance of fundamentalists that I have had.
I too can look at history and find that any society religious or not is capable of and has acted with great cruelty. Are you suggesting that only religious zealots are capable of this? Seems to me that you are putting a slant on this based on your own prejudices.
-
Crow:
First, let me correct myself: Jesus did not wash the feet of the prostitute; she washed his. In any case, the point is the same: He comforted her in her time of need without trying to cram his morality down her throat. That was his M.O., and that was one reason he was loved. Further, I think that defining a "true Christian" is a simple matter that follows from the term itself: A "true Christian" is one who seeks to emulate Christ.
I agree with you that the government has no business in the religion business. (I would go further and say that I think that "religion" has been bad for mankind, but that's a topic for another day.) I think that this viewpoint follows naturally from a common-sense reading of history, given the myriad atrocities, injustices, and plain bad policy that have wrought in the name of God and church.
To answer your question, I don't really know what Jesus would think about this nonsense. My guess is that it would not make it onto his radar screen, because, from His perspective, it is much ado about nothing. He always showed disdain for those who were self-righteously religious, and I suspect that he might view this judge in the same way.
Regarding your comment that I am "overstating the situation," I guess we'll just have to disagree on that point.
And, by the way, don't worry about offending me. I was just trying to gauge your intent. Certain subtleties of expression don't convey well over the Internet.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I too can look at history and find that any society religious or not is capable of and has acted with great cruelty. Are you suggesting that only religious zealots are capable of this? Seems to me that you are putting a slant on this based on your own prejudices.
You may be right that I have been prejudiced by my experiences with theistic intolerance, discrimination and persecution of non-theists.
However, I think you will be hard pressed to list an equal set of examples of secular societies committing atrocities when compared to atrocities committed in the name of religion over the past several thousand years (6000years if you are a young earther). One caveat is Communism, which I consider to be a situation where the state is the religion, the state supplants God, and the citizens worship the state. Communism is equally as bad as any theocracy.
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Actually, he's closer to Stalin. He uses fear and intimidation to enrich himself and his cronies, while under the guise of helping the black man. Oh, thats another thread, but you brought it up.
Oh NOW you've done it, you woke up da Lizard :D
SHOW 'EM THE SCAR MAN!
:D
It's OK to use the commandments as a behavioral guide to emulate Jesus and how he lived but I can't go along with using them as political weapon. If they are allowed to remain we run the risk of opening a Pandora's box. I personally would like to see them stay but when I look at the big picture and the possible repercussions, I say we need to find this big rock another home.
Just checked my pulse, 62, I dun good :D
-
Originally posted by Eagler
just wondering how many of the crowd who wants to see this display go are in favor of removing the practice of one swearing on a bible or to God in any court?
I think most if not all ... sad
Sad not to want to swear on a book or entity I don't believe in? Would it be better to just shine everyone on and leave it "status quo"?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
thanks for the snapshot of what is wrong with today's enlightenment or the lack thereof
Do you have any snapshots of your maidservant?
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Didn't Jesus wash the feet of the prostitute by the well?
Any resemblance between modern Christians and the actions of Jesus Christ are purely coincidental.
-
I personally think that it is a shame that we should drive out one of the foundations that this country was founded upon.
Perhaps next we should eliminate other basic elements from our government also.
I'm voting for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Followed very closely by no taxation without representation.
If you don't like this country then move. I'm still waiting for Alec Baldwin to export to Canada.
If you find it offensive that there are religious values in our governement then perhaps you should go to one of those countries that really value government without religion like Irag, Iran, China, North Korea or Russia.
P.S. I hear Greenland is good. They don't have religion. They only have reindeer and alcohol and six-month nights.
Good luck heathens.
-
man, don't give a theocracy as an example of a secular goverment.
-
Judge Moore has been suspended.
Good.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
One caveat is Communism, which I consider to be a situation where the state is the religion, the state supplants God, and the citizens worship the state. Communism is equally as bad as any theocracy.
Your caveat is interesting in that the two largest communist states, China and the former USSR, are basically the only states where religion has been banned. So, you really can't exclude them from this discussion. In fact, since they are the only states in recorded history in which religion was completey excluded they become the only valid comparison.
So, how tolerant and benevolent are/were these giants among civilizations? I guess we all know the answer to that.
China didn't actually ban religion but was/is very restrictive.
-
This is a very complex matter, not only in Alabama, but in several other states. I looked up in my search engine the ten commandments, ten commandments in the courtroom. There are many diverse opions, even among scholars. It would take a lot of reading time to truly delve into the legal aspects concerning Moore's courthouse stand. I admire him for his tenacity, albeit whether he is politicizing the issue or not. I have read mostly assumptions from his opponents, calling him a hypocrite. I don't know whether he is or not. I would like to believe he is not.
Also, I saw a couple web sites that seemed to indicate that having the ten commandments in the courtroom, was a step up from medieval law...which was oppressive. Christian Revisionist Movement seemed to go into some detail.
What do I think:
It is a political issue. Seems like the one thing I found in common, was the ACLU files these suits, (and loses about half of them.) Most people in Alabama think of the ACLU as communist in nature, and fight it whenever they can. So it's not about religion, or even the ten commandments. It's about standing up to the ACLU.
The same ACLU that filed a lawsuit against a high school, three days after the terrorist attack 9-11. Reason for the lawsuit? The high school had "God Bless America" on their sign out front.
Les
-
Originally posted by Snork
Any resemblance between modern Christians and the actions of Jesus Christ are purely coincidental.
This is an unfair overgeneralization, but I understand at least some of the things that would make you express it.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
It is a political issue. Seems like the one thing I found in common, was the ACLU files these suits, (and loses about half of them.) Most people in Alabama think of the ACLU as communist in nature, and fight it whenever they can. So it's not about religion, or even the ten commandments. It's about standing up to the ACLU.
The same ACLU that filed a lawsuit against a high school, three days after the terrorist attack 9-11. Reason for the lawsuit? The high school had "God Bless America" on their sign out front.
Les
I think the ACLU is a good thing in principal.
Unfortunately, in practice it is very, very suspect.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
It is a political issue. Seems like the one thing I found in common, was the ACLU files these suits, (and loses about half of them.) Most people in Alabama think of the ACLU as communist in nature, and fight it whenever they can. So it's not about religion, or even the ten commandments. It's about standing up to the ACLU.
I wonder if those folks stood up and protested the ACLU in these cases:
ACLU Defends Families Fighting Removal Of Religious Symbols from Florida Cemetery (http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/n032299c.html)
ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School (http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n071102b.html)
ACLU backs abortion protester cited for graphic poster (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16471)
ACLU Defends Prisoner's Right to Keep Rosary (http://archive.aclu.org/news/2000/w020900a.html)
ACLU defends Ku Klux Klan Cross In Public Forum (http://archive.aclu.org/court/pinet.html)
ACLU Pledges to Back Church in a Zoning Battle (http://archive.aclu.org/news/w091196b.html)
ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for Baptist Church (http://www.aclu.org/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=11083&c=28)
ACLU Joins Jerry Falwell To Fight For Church Incorporation Rights (http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n041702c.html)
-
Originally posted by Leslie
It is a political issue. Seems like the one thing I found in common, was the ACLU files these suits, (and loses about half of them.) Most people in Alabama think of the ACLU as communist in nature, and fight it whenever they can. So it's not about religion, or even the ten commandments. It's about standing up to the ACLU.
I don't know if you have seen much of the supporters and protesters for the Good Judge's cause, but from what I can tell it has very much to do with religion. These are the kind of people who believe that those who oppose establishment are leading the country to ruin. For them there is something far more serious at stake than an attempt to spite the ACLU.
-
Doesn't the Supreme Court have a mural depicting Moses carrying the Ten Commandments on its wall?
What about chaplains in the Armed Forces? How about the chaplain serving Congress? Maybe the Congress should be forced to stop reciting their prayer every day?
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
I don't know if you have seen much of the supporters and protesters for the Good Judge's cause, but from what I can tell it has very much to do with religion. These are the kind of people who believe that those who oppose establishment are leading the country to ruin. For them there is something far more serious at stake than an attempt to spite the ACLU.
I'm glad you don't like me ErlKonig, I don't like you either, especially after seeing your horrible avatar. :D
Les
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I'm glad you don't like me ErlKonig, I don't like you either, especially after seeing your horrible avatar. :D
WHAT
(http://www.lukeford.com/wenho.jpg)
-
Not much business for the Tong here ErlKonig. Now crawl back in your hole, and forget about the negative thoughts.;)
That's what Oddball said in the movie.:D
Les
-
Shouldn't this extend to any art influenced by any religion (pro or con) in any goverment building?
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I wonder if those folks stood up and protested the ACLU in these cases:
ACLU Defends Families Fighting Removal Of Religious Symbols from Florida Cemetery (http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/n032299c.html)
ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School (http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n071102b.html)
ACLU backs abortion protester cited for graphic poster (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16471)
ACLU Defends Prisoner's Right to Keep Rosary (http://archive.aclu.org/news/2000/w020900a.html)
ACLU defends Ku Klux Klan Cross In Public Forum (http://archive.aclu.org/court/pinet.html)
ACLU Pledges to Back Church in a Zoning Battle (http://archive.aclu.org/news/w091196b.html)
ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for Baptist Church (http://www.aclu.org/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=11083&c=28)
ACLU Joins Jerry Falwell To Fight For Church Incorporation Rights (http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n041702c.html)
I didn't look at the links CrowMAW, but if they didn't, they should have.
Les
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
WHAT
(http://www.lukeford.com/wenho.jpg)
Why does that woman have a moustache?
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I didn't look at the links CrowMAW, but if they didn't, they should have.
Les
Some won't as ignorance is bliss.
If they didn't see it, it must not exist.
-
"Ten Commandments is displayed in the Supreme Court’s own building in Washington. "
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I didn't look at the links CrowMAW, but if they didn't, they should have.
Les
Paaleeese..
Can't you tell the difference between state sponsorship and personal freedom?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"Ten Commandments is displayed in the Supreme Court’s own building in Washington. "
I dunno but it seems very unlikely. Since the Supreme Court has denied Moore's appeal it would seem to be the pinnacle of hypocrisy if they had their own.
-
There is a mural depicting the "law givers" in history. Moses is one of many, and he is carrying tablets.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
There is a mural depicting the "law givers" in history. Moses is one of many, and he is carrying tablets.
same thing ain't it - I mean the same message?
how is it alright there but not in AL?
-
Not the same thing at all.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2075577/
click on the "slide show"
-
Heck yeah I can read that. Thanks for clearing it up MT!
Blah, what happened to the red X? :)
-
I agree MT, dispalying a mural depicting the "history" of law including Moses with the tablets isn't the same as displaying the 10 Commandments.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not the same thing at all.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2075577/
click on the "slide show"
if the argument is "the separation of church and state, blah, blah, blah" - splitting hairs - they represent the same thing
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
There is a mural depicting the "law givers" in history. Moses is one of many, and he is carrying tablets.
So you're saying that Moses was a part of actual history MT?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if the argument is "the separation of church and state, blah, blah, blah" - splitting hairs - they represent the same thing
Eagler, Moses was a historical figure and a law bringer. There is a difference between recognizing him along with the many others that influenced our law and honoring the actual law that he brought.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Eagler, Moses was a historical figure and a law bringer. There is a difference between recognizing him along with the many others that influenced our law and honoring the actual law that he brought.
of what "Historical" purpose is he other than the laws that he brought? <- as he pertains to our justice sys
-
I haven't seen the mural and MT's link is dead. I think that a mural depicting the historical influences on our law in our highest court is appropriate. Of course I don't have a problem with the Ten Commandments being displayed in a public building either, and when ya get down to the nitty gritty what difference does it make in Alabama anyhow, 90% of the folks there cain't read. ;)
-
since Moses is ok - can this bama judge swap out for a life size Moses statue carrying a set of tablets?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
since Moses is ok - can this bama judge swap out for a life size Moses statue carrying a set of tablets?
Fine by me. ;)
-
Originally posted by hblair
So you're saying that Moses was a part of actual history MT?
Was that in question?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
since Moses is ok - can this bama judge swap out for a life size Moses statue carrying a set of tablets?
This would still fail the Lemon Test since the chief justice explicitly stated that the primary purpose of the monument was religious and not historical. Throwing Moses into the mix wouldn't change the primary intent and thus would still render the display unconstitutional.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
If half the effort spent by folks on both sides of this issue went towards loving one another as God commanded, we wouldn't have any problems in this country.
-
Originally posted by Rude
If half the effort spent by folks on both sides of this issue went towards loving one another as God commanded, we wouldn't have any problems in this country.
Or the world.
All religions preach that, but extremists always sway the way people think. That's why separation of church and state is so important. The ruling, in the eyes of the constitution, is the correct one.
-
Eagler your church is corupted and confused. it is nothing more then a business now that has no idea what jesus preached.
I spit on what your god has become.
People that believe a theocracy works should move to iran or saudi arabia.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Eagler your church is corupted and confused. it is nothing more then a business now that has no idea what jesus preached.
I spit on what your god has become.....
then you spit on yourself handsomehunk
God is not church and organized religion is not God - get a grip creep
-
god is what we make it. its our creation and people can use it for good and bad.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Was that in question?
Figured I wouldn't get a straightforward answer.
-
I thought my reply was pretty concise. Moses is an historical figure.....
(hblair receives the lob punt at the 20... what will he do with it?)
-
So midnight target does believe Moses actually existed, that's a yes or no question.
-
I never felt inclined to doubt his existence until you pressed me on it. Now I feel the need to research the diverging viewpoints. It would seem that there are 3 main camps here...
1. Moses existed and wrote the 1st 5 books of the Bible
2. Moses existed and may have authored some of the 1st 5 books.
3. Moses never existed, and his name is a Hebrewised version of Ahmose, a Pharoe of the period.
I think he probably existed.
-
Seeing a picture in USNews of people neelin around the monument praying reminded me of the story about how when Moses came down from the mountain he found people worshiping a bull or something like that.
Funny how a big block of granite can look like a bull...
-
Yer kinda stretchin' it there Lizard. Lotta difference between praying to a golden calf and praying near a monument.
-
You're soo wishy-washy and weak MT.
:p
-
As opposed to wrong and strong?
:p
-
I just don't get it. I saw a clip of an "interview" last night on TV of who I can only assume is Judge Moore. He was screaming like a TV evangelist about "this not being about the sepration of church and state or about the law, but about the power of god." Im sure that is not what he said verbatim, but it is somewhat close.
What i dont get: If this man is so strong in his beliefs, and is so insistent upon expressing his beliefs, why did he choose a career that limits his power to incorparate these beliefs into his job?
Why not be a TV evangelist? Or the head of a local Church? Some career involved with people who CHOOSE to attend a place where they can share and celebrate their beliefs and faith and would honor and respect the presence of the Ten Commandments or any other rendition of a religious relic.
Saying this, I know some people might say that individuals should not be disqualified from any career because of their own religious or even secular beliefs. Of course they shouldn't.
But at the same time, if a person chooses to persue a career where one is a representative of the powers that be, (the secular governmental power, that is) their personal and private faith should have no effect, bearing, or influence on that said career.
This fact (factual in MYHO) being stated, and the signfigance made ten-fold by the fact that near 50 percent of the people that attend a court of law don't want to be there, no one should be subjected to one particular set of religious beliefs.
Granted, a two ton monolithic structure engraved with the Ten Commandments being present outside or inside a courthouse is not exactly imposing any religious belief on anyone. You could choose to walk by it and not look at it.
In addition, if you have chosen a religion (or have chosen to be areligious) that is different to the one that holds the Ten Commandments sacred and the law of Man and God, the presence of such a monolith should not bother you.
Only those unsure of their own faith are threatened by the presence of another's. This works for any religion or lack thereof.
But i digress.
I just don't see why anyone who has such firm religious beliefs, infact someone who has defined his whole chararcter and career by them, would persue and indeed defend his role as an administrator of justice in a society where justice is mandated to be blind.
:confused:
-
Originally posted by loser
I just don't get it. I saw a clip of an "interview" last night on TV of who I can only assume is Judge Moore. He was screaming like a TV evangelist about "this not being about the sepration of church and state or about the law, but about the power of god." Im sure that is not what he said verbatim, but it is somewhat close.
What i dont get: If this man is so strong in his beliefs, and is so insistent upon expressing his beliefs, why did he choose a career that limits his power to incorparate these beliefs into his job?
Why not be a TV evangelist? Or the head of a local Church? Some career involved with people who CHOOSE to attend a place where they can share and celebrate their beliefs and faith and would honor and respect the presence of the Ten Commandments or any other rendition of a religious relic.
Saying this, I know some people might say that individuals should not be disqualified from any career because of their own religious or even secular beliefs. Of course they shouldn't.
But at the same time, if a person chooses to persue a career where one is a representative of the powers that be, (the secular governmental power, that is) their personal and private faith should have no effect, bearing, or influence on that said career.
This fact (factual in MYHO) being stated, and the signfigance made ten-fold by the fact that near 50 percent of the people that attend a court of law don't want to be there, no one should be subjected to one particular set of religious beliefs.
Granted, a two ton monolithic structure engraved with the Ten Commandments being present outside or inside a courthouse is not exactly imposing any religious belief on anyone. You could choose to walk by it and not look at it.
In addition, if you have chosen a religion (or have chosen to be areligious) that is different to the one that holds the Ten Commandments sacred and the law of Man and God, the presence of such a monolith should not bother you.
Only those unsure of their own faith are threatened by the presence of another's. This works for any religion or lack thereof.
But i digress.
I just don't see why anyone who has such firm religious beliefs, infact someone who has defined his whole chararcter and career by them, would persue and indeed defend his role as an administrator of justice in a society where justice is mandated to be blind.
:confused:
I saw a brief clip while scanning past the news channels last night. Some bubba blubbering "Get yer hands off my God!!" as they moved the monolith. Lotsa folks down there letting the cheese slip right off the cracker.
-
Originally posted by Snork
I saw a brief clip while scanning past the news channels last night. Some bubba blubbering "Get yer hands off my God!!" as they moved the monolith. Lotsa folks down there letting the cheese slip right off the cracker.
LOL - true - but the media isn't gonna put the calm rational side of the christian argument on the tele - that would go against their cause and be boring "news"...
I think for every "blubbering bubba" you see on tv, there are many "sane" ppl who don't see a problem with the AL judges (who seems alittle overboard too to me) decision. Heard over 70% think they should let the rock be ..
-
This monument was put there by the judge without consent from anyone. Then ignores a court order to remove it, making a total mockery of the system he is sworn to uphold. Let me tell ya, if that's me ignoring a court order, they are hauling my prettythang off to jail.