Federal Court orders State Supreme Court to Remove Ten Commandments

[Sir Taliesin]

But Chewie, that's exactly how your first statement came off sounding like. Rokenn's too for that matter.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MagiK, the "congress shall make no law" part gets hooked in through two steps. (1)SPENDING -- it was a governmental appropriation that bought the thing, and is therefore a legislative act. (2) 14th Amendment -- makes it clear that any constitutional limit applicable to the federal government will also apply to State governments. I think the law is clear that, via statues, policies, and other sorts of ways to innundate folks, the government could "establish" religion or "limit the free exercise thereof" without going so far as to found and build a Church of America.

I think the ammendment is quite clear as written and litterally interpreted. I think it is modern day lawyers that have perverted the interpretation. (well lawyers and liberal judges.)

A statue or monument does not constitue establishing a religon. Any argument to the contrary is merely an opposite opinion [img]smile.gif[/img] Albeit one accepted by trial lawyers and left wingers.

Chewie, I understand the word bigot is a bad word in our language, but it is also true that every single one of us is guilty of biggotry in one sense or
another. Pointing out one persons apparent bias is not necessarily the same as saying you are biggoted about all things. I wouldn't get too upset at the word in the way it was used. Just an opinion.

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by pritchke: I disagree with these lawyers. The Ten Commandments has more significance than religious, it also has historic, and a legal significance of being the first written law of the land in which all laws of today are based. Maybe they are offended by history so therefore we should rewrite it. Other than that our current law is ours to change the ten commandments has nothing to do with the current law of the land. Why are they so offended? I find myself agreeing with Magik that it must be that they feel guilty everytime they look at it.

Actaully the Ten Comandments are not the first written laws. The first laws were laid down in Mesopotamia.

A question to the Christians out there. How comfortable would you feel walking into a court room where the judge had a copy of the Koran displayed and a large plaque with Islamic quotes? Or Pagan/Wicca symbols on display? [/QUOTE]As John D has already said- We are expected to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. Abide by the law of the land you reside in. If it's legal to put up those things, why should it bother me? As long as I'm not forced to 'worship' those symbols or take on other beliefs, I have no issue with one being there. Nobody is telling me that I must suddenly convert if I see them, are they?

If the Judge ignored US or state law in favor of some religious beliefs that were contrary to the law, I'd complain (that handy little 'seperation of church and state' thing works in this instance) but if he's following the law and doing his job, he can put lace doilies and pictures of a chicken in overalls on his desk or wall for all I care.

A question for you, Rokenn: Who or what caused you to have such virulent dislike of all Christians. It seems to me that you (and Chewbacca, as well as others) have this stereotype of a Christian that says if someone calls themselves Christian they are automatically to be reviled as ultra right wing purveyors of hate and all things nasty. Stereotypes are rarely the whole story and in this case not even the largest part of it, just the most vocal. I'm truly curious as I fail to see how I or any of the true Christians on this board have caused you injury or taken away your civil liberties or forced you to convert in any way.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Mr. Harris I spent quite a few years on the recieving end of alot of bigotry and intolerance from southern christians in Montgomery Alabama, so I am qualified to know how some of them will react. Never call me a bigot again. Name calling isnt allowed on this forum and calling some one a bigot is serious in my book.

Chewbacca, I'm sorry that you have indured intolerance, I have also indured intolerance. I did not call you a name, I called into question your actions, words and held them up for examination, as you have mine, both of our actions I beleive are within the rules of the forum. I've PM'ed you to explain in further detail.

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: In current society it is almost a requirement that you state your belief in God to be elected to any office.

I don't buy that. If it were so, then all you mentioned would come to pass in this country, now wouldn't it. You make it sound like ALL christians want to throw everyone else to the lions. Not True my friend. Most Christians are quite tolerate people. [/QUOTE]Thing is, many people seem to have bought into the idea that ONE segment of a group (the more vocal and far right one in this case) must be representative of ALL the members of the the group. In this case it's so far off base it isn't funny, but then the 'moderate' and more reasonable Christians among us don't go around thumping people with Bibles or shooting doctors and burning crosses, now do we? [img]smile.gif[/img] So what's seen in the news is sensational, radical and over the top bunch like the Bakers, Falwells and Jones' of the world who CLAIM to be Christian, but in my book are far and away less so than anyone I know in my church or community.

TL, [img]smile.gif[/img]
If the statue was purchased with federal funds, then it's possible it might offend someone who felt it was too religious or not on par with their own religion (although, frankly, most of the 10 commandments are actually part of our law- murder, adultery, theft...all are in there). I think it's one hell of a stretch, though, to assume that's creating a state religion unless it were rampant...that is if every public building started sporting the same religiously oriented statue or painting etc....still, if the state doesn't tell you it's mandatory to worship said art or the idea depicted in it, then it's pushing it IMO to assume that it sets up a state religion.

You know the ancient Greeks worshipped the notion of a 'perfect body'....does that mean that all the 'art' statues in federally funded museums are in violation of the laws protecting minorities like the disabled? How far do we go...I know we've been exaggerating here, but I seriously wonder, how far do we let it go?

A friend mentioned a news item a few weeks ago. A woman who taught in a private school was told she had to remove her cross necklace because it offended non-Christian students in the school. She was let go when she refused to compromise her beliefs, which she had in NO way imposed on anyone in the school and hadn't even discussed with students. So this woman is not allowed to practice her own beliefs or show any indication she has them? She won that case in court, btw. Wish I remembered what state it was in! If she wore a stonehenge pin or a Mayan symbol, I highly doubt anyone would have accused her of forcing druidism or human sacrifice on the students. Again, it just seems to me that it's because she's Christian and it's trendy to dislike them.

No doubt, as Rokenn noted, they are a large section of the population and that may have something to do with it. Some non-Christians may have had dealings with fringe groups or those in the far ends of the spectrum, they may have reason to dislike THAT section of the Christian population and just carry the stereotype forward. I'm not a sociologist, but that's my best guess.

[ 07-03-2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

The long and short of it is that right now, in the USA. It is perfectly acceptable to insult, defame, deride, and in any other way attack Christians...while any hint of negativity toward any other group in this country will result in Hate crimes charges being leveled.

Because Christianity is supposedly the Majority and not a minority, we are not afforded the same protections as theother groups. Not fair.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: TL, [img]smile.gif[/img] If the statue was purchased with federal funds, then it's possible it might offend someone who felt it was too religious or not on par with their own religion (although, frankly, most of the 10 commandments are actually part of our law- murder, adultery, theft...all are in there). I think it's one hell of a stretch, though, to assume that's creating a state religion unless it were rampant...that is if every public building started sporting the same religiously oriented statue or painting etc....still, if the state doesn't tell you it's mandatory to worship said art or the idea depicted in it, then it's pushing it IMO to assume that it sets up a state religion.

I think we agree, and perhaps I didn't make that clear. And, I think this reasoning applies to Christian art and icons as well. I was merely pointing out that if you're going to ban the Christian art and iconography, you are prejudicing Christianity vis-a-vis other religions. I think a statue of David is just as fine a public decoration as one of Circe or Hercules. I think a quote from Leviticus has every much as value on a public building as one from Aristotle.

A friend mentioned a news item a few weeks ago. A woman who taught in a private school was told she had to remove her cross necklace because it offended non-Christian students in the school. She was let go when she refused to compromise her beliefs, which she had in NO way imposed on anyone in the school and hadn't even discussed with students. So this woman is not allowed to practice her own beliefs or show any indication she has them? She won that case in court, btw. Wish I remembered what state it was in! If she wore a stonehenge pin or a Mayan symbol, I highly doubt anyone would have accused her of forcing druidism or human sacrifice on the students. Again, it just seems to me that it's because she's Christian and it's trendy to dislike them.

Y'know when I'm an older muppet, I think I'll spend my time taking on cases like this for free -- litigating world change and all that. Most of you know I'm an avowed atheist. Nevertheless, it was wrong this woman had her free exercise of religion prohibited. It is exactly the same as asking a Hindu teacher not to put a red dot on her forehead (I don't know the correct term for this -- so forgive the blunt phraseology) or a Muslim teacher to remove her veil, either one based on how these things "offend" some good down-home Christian students. The only reason the courts aren't all up-in-arms over this one is that, as Cloudy says, it's quite fashionable to hate Christians these days. I'm glad she won her case -- it was the right result.

[ 07-03-2003, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: But Chewie, that's exactly how your first statement came off sounding like. Rokenn's too for that matter.

Would you mind pointing out exactly how my statements were bigoted? I merely pointed out some of the Christain Right's political agenda.

[Rokenn]

I have nothing against Christains in general, I have many Christain friends. If you read what I wrote I was specificly referring to the Christain Right (which is the most organized and vocal portion of the Christain community), and merely pointed out some of their political agenda I disagree with. I would have the same problem with any religious faction trying to foist its views onto me via the Government. For all I care people can worship the tree stumb in their backyard, or the spot of mustard on their wall as long as they are not trying to use my tax dollars to do it. If you want your kids to learn creationism instead of science then send em to a private school, with your own money. If you try and use my tax dollars to subsidize the teaching of religion I will fight that tooth and nail. I hope I have made my feelings clear on this [img]smile.gif[/img]