Judge dismissed for supporting Ten Commandments [Archive]

Skinzaholic

08-23-2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by seeway
The content of the monument had nothing to do with his suspension.

Not only incorrect... but also extremely short-sighted. The content of the monument had EVERYTHING to do with this. A majority of Americans across this country would testify that they support the content of the Ten Commandments and those values in our country. BUT... because a sparse few agenda groups scream and kick about THEIR individual rights... the weak-willed courts attempt to please everyone by once again interfering in our constitutional rights.

If you dont want to live in a country that publically displays and supports basic Christian values... then move to Iraq. This is what America was founded upon... and in the near future the masses of Americans beyond the borders of our major cities are gonna get sick and tired of these sort of things happening and will eventually take a stand.

I have my guns loaded...

JoeDaSchmoe

08-23-2003, 12:00 PM

That's enough Mississippi Militia talk, Skinz. ;)

IowaSkinsFan

08-23-2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Not only incorrect... but also extremely short-sighted. The content of the monument had EVERYTHING to do with this. A majority of Americans across this country would testify that they support the content of the Ten Commandments and those values in our country. BUT... because a sparse few agenda groups scream and kick about THEIR individual rights... the weak-willed courts attempt to please everyone by once again interfering in our constitutional rights.

If you dont want to live in a country that publically displays and supports basic Christian values... then move to Iraq. This is what America was founded upon... and in the near future the masses of Americans beyond the borders of our major cities are gonna get sick and tired of these sort of things happening and will eventually take a stand.

I have my guns loaded...

I have a good email I am going to PM you Skinz....Spence is going to be back soon and I don't want to be lectured about this one.

Skinzaholic

08-23-2003, 05:59 PM

Hey.... I found a great cruise package to Ruby Ridge!!!!

Keino

08-25-2003, 01:30 PM

Geez Skinz, Considering that there are only 2 American Laws that are covered in the Ten Commandments (Stealing and Murder), I'm not so sure this nation was founded on Christian values as you would have us believe. As a matter of fact Im quite sure this country was founded on the ideal that one should be free from Government Mandated religion and that one is free to practice the religion of their choice.......This is not a Theocracy......If you want a Government based on religion, perhaps it is you that should move to the middle east......

My Government's constitution protects me from religious fanatacism......If I want to worship cows, that is my choice.

Skinzaholic

08-25-2003, 05:06 PM

Keino... the facts are the facts... I know it is uncomfortable for those who do not embrace (or even respect) Christian values to accept that our nation was founded on them... but the quotes are numerous and the authentic documents diverse in supporting that fact.

The statement that if you want to worship cows you can, is the very heart of what I am speaking about. Why, as a Christian, am I required to remove a standard of my beliefs from a courthouse in my own country, and then stand back and watch others flaunt their "religious freedom" in my face?

No... things are definitely out of whack... the 10 Commandments aren't only a "christian" standard... also "Judiasm", "Catholiscism", Jehovah Witness, Mormons, etc etc etc.

This is simply an example of the goverment dictating what it's people can believe... exactly what they (and the masses of citizens who are clueless about what really is happening) say they stand against.

Spence

08-25-2003, 10:13 PM

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That's the first Commandment. It is not only religious but it is an explicit endorsement of Judeo-Christian religion. That makes it instantly unconstitutional. It's not even close. Anyone who argues differently simply doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Arguing that displaying the Ten Commandments on public property is not unconstitutional is idiocy. If you want to argue that the Constitution should be different, that's one thing. Knock yourself out. But don't tell me this isn't unconstitutional. It's first day of Con Law class in every single accredited law school in the country.

Skinz, no one flaunts their religious freedom in your face. Not on public property anyway. Nobody does that. The Constitution holds Christianity to the same standards that it holds every other religion. That is what really bothers you and it is obvious so please stop pretending otherwise. This isn't about Christianity being trampled by other religions--no religious display will replace this Ten Commandments monument when it is removed. This is about other people's ability to resist the efforts of people like you to enforce your peculiar version of Christianity on the entire country.

I don't know what that "I have my guns loaded" line is supposed to mean, but don't live in hope that the country's secular majority isn't prepared to defend itself. If any country boy [or city boy, for that matter] tries to force his version of Christianity or any other religion on me, I'll blow a gaping hole through the back of his head. Then I'll say a nice little Christian prayer for the dead man's soul.

IowaSkinsFan

08-26-2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Spence
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That's the first Commandment. It is not only religious but it is an explicit endorsement of Judeo-Christian religion. That makes it instantly unconstitutional. It's not even close. Anyone who argues differently simply doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Arguing that displaying the Ten Commandments on public property is not unconstitutional is idiocy. If you want to argue that the Constitution should be different, that's one thing. Knock yourself out. But don't tell me this isn't unconstitutional. It's first day of Con Law class in every single accredited law school in the country.

Skinz, no one flaunts their religious freedom in your face. Not on public property anyway. Nobody does that. The Constitution holds Christianity to the same standards that it holds every other religion. That is what really bothers you and it is obvious so please stop pretending otherwise. This isn't about Christianity being trampled by other religions--no religious display will replace this Ten Commandments monument when it is removed. This is about other people's ability to resist the efforts of people like you to enforce your peculiar version of Christianity on the entire country.

I don't know what that "I have my guns loaded" line is supposed to mean, but don't live in hope that the country's secular majority isn't prepared to defend itself. If any country boy [or city boy, for that matter] tries to force his version of Christianity or any other religion on me, I'll blow a gaping hole through the back of his head. Then I'll say a nice little Christian prayer for the dead man's soul.

Spence,

I am mildly surprised at the thought of you and violence in the same sentence. If the scenario you detailed above were to actually happen, do you know of any good lawyers to try your case.

Spence

08-26-2003, 08:16 AM

I'm not a violent person, but I know a few good lawyers should I ever require them. Seems like a pretty clearcut case of self-defense if I shoot some creep who wants to impose his American taliban views on me. It's just a response to Skinz's weird "I've got my guns loaded" threat. Things won't ever come to that, of course. We hear these things from the extremists on the right wing from time to time, but I don't take them seriously. Clearly, they are capable of blowing up a federal building or two, but the right wing extremists are too disorganized and silly to ever pose a threat to my democracy.

IowaSkinsFan

08-26-2003, 08:28 AM

You know Spence, you keep calling them right wing extremist, but maybe they are so far to the right they are all the way over on the left? Maybe we should just call them extremists, eh?

Also, I watch Law & Order and NYPD Blue, so I am pretty versed in the law as well.....I'm not sure you had a reasonable cause to fear for your life just because Jehovah's Witness came to your door. Self defense won't work there, I've already tried that route.

NamVet4

08-26-2003, 09:14 AM

This is just a stone monument, not the Ten Commandments! I choose to live by the Commandments when possible – others choose to live by other standards. I respect that and have defended the right of others in America to live by those standards. Freedom bears great responsibility – tolerance is one of them.
Moving this granite and/or marble “icon” is not in any way disparaging the Ten Commandments. Destroying it, defacing it or damaging it – that’s another issue!
Where the problem lies is in the debate by both sides, which have fanatics and zealots aplenty, as to what constitutes religious freedom and what constitutes constitutional compliance.

:banghead:

Spence

08-26-2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by robert11273
You know Spence, you keep calling them right wing extremist, but maybe they are so far to the right they are all the way over on the left? Maybe we should just call them extremists, eh?

Also, I watch Law & Order and NYPD Blue, so I am pretty versed in the law as well.....I'm not sure you had a reasonable cause to fear for your life just because Jehovah's Witness came to your door. Self defense won't work there, I've already tried that route.
No, Robert, I'm pretty certain that the people I'm talking about are right-wing extremists.

With all due respect, watching television shows just isn't the same as going to law school. But in any case, your Jehovah's Witness analogy is not apropos. I have people like that come to my door from time to time. A polite "Thank you, but I'm very happy with my current church" usually works well enough on them. Skinz wrote: "I have my guns loaded." I think any reasonable person would agree that is quite different than a couple of overdressed evangelists banging on people's doors. The former is a threat, the latter is a nuisance. Turning guns on a couple of over-eager evangelists would make me a psychopath. Turning guns on people determined to alter the constitutional nature of this country by force [I've got my guns loaded"] is self-defense.

IowaSkinsFan

08-26-2003, 10:11 AM

Spence, the Law & Order, NYPD Blue thing was a joke. Do you ever laugh?

Oh, BTW, don't look now but I think you just made a case supporting the 2nd amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Spence

08-26-2003, 10:17 AM

I laugh a lot, Robert, though not as often as I'd like. It wasn't clear to me you were making a joke. Sorry.

I find the current interpretation of the Second Amendment problematic, but if the country is going to be awash in guns [and it is], then good liberals should have some of them. The alternative would be too horrible to contemplate.

IowaSkinsFan

08-26-2003, 10:21 AM

That's the spirit! I knew you would come around.

Spence

08-26-2003, 10:41 AM

You've never read me condemning gun ownership. I think you'll find all the Democratic candidates ignoring the issue, too. Democratic polling has shown that millions of voters prefer the Democrats on the issues, but don't vote Democratic because of the gun issue. The party seems pretty determined to eliminate that problem by reassuring gun owners.

Skinzaholic

08-26-2003, 01:48 PM

It seems so funny to me that in our country... it is great to stand up for what you believe in when it comes to issues such as Gay rights, Racial Discrimination, Anti-Abortion, even Gun Control... yet when you stand up for Christianity it is instantly labeled "intolerence" and a "bigot".

Spence, you obviously have a very strong opinion on several matters. But, that is all it is... an opinion. My opinion is very strong as well (especially on this issue). You are so quick to go on the attack for the name of democracy... yet by attacking you become just as intolerant as you accuse me of being.

Personally, the "I've got my gun loaded" comment was simply due to frustration on my part. I would never be able to take that extreme of a measure... but that doesn't mean others arent. I wouldn't be surpried to see that happen.

Spence, your biased view and interpretation of this nations standards is the stench that has us going through all of this as we speak. It amazes me how you can interpret "religious freedom" as the freedom to practice whatever religion you want... yet the moment anyone mentions a point of view that is opposite democracy (your religion)... you jump up and engage them in a verbal joust. Seems very one-sided to me.

What is religious freedom anyway? According to you and your uninformed interpretation... it is the freedom to practice whatever religion you fancy, free from the governments control. That interpretation is an impossible one to live with (as we are seeing today).

Afterall... what can we believe? How can we ALL tolerate everything? It cant be done...

If you believe in God... then which one?

Jehovah says no other gods but Him
Allah says all other gods are enemies
Christianity says Jesus is only way to God

What about not believing in God?

Atheism - there is no god
Hinduism - everything is god
New Age - we have god within us
Humanism - we are all gods

on and on and on this goes.

If I am an aethiest.. then the very fact that ANY churches exist offends me.

If I am Jewish... then all mention of Jesus and the cross offends me.

If I am a muslim... then any god except Allah offends me.

If I am a humanist... then anything which doesn't lift up the power of human life offendes me.

When does it all end?

The reality of it all is that this nation was founded on CHRISTIAN beliefs... and the constitution was written to protect those beliefs from people like you who wish to interpret the constitution to make it say what you want it to say.

That isnt interpretation... it is manipulation.

As I have said before... there are more people in this country who agree with this then who agree with your short-sighted point of view. They may not be as loud... but they do exist. (Just check out any Nascar race and you will find alot of them).

God Bless the USA... all others get the heck out and leave us alone!

Skinzaholic

08-26-2003, 01:59 PM

This is the text of the first national day of thanksgiving in America (set for December 18, 1777), declared by the Continental Congress on November 1, 1777:

IN CONGRESS

November 1, 1777

FORASMUCH as it is the indispensable Duty of all Men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther Blessings as they stand in Need of; And it having pleased him in his abundant Mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable Bounties of his common Providence, but also to smile upon us in the Prosecution of a just and necessary War, for the Defence and Establishment of our unalienable Rights and Liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a Measure to prosper the Means used for the Support of our Troops and to crown our Arms with most signal success:

It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth Day of December next, for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; That with one Heart and one Voice the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere Acknowledgments and Offerings, they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins, whereby they had forfeited every Favour, and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please GOD, through the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of Remembrance; That it may please him graciously to afford his Blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public Council of the whole; to inspire our Commanders both by Land and Sea, and all under them, with that Wisdom and Fortitude which may render them fit Instruments, under the Providence of Almighty GOD, to secure for these United States the greatest of all human blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE; That it may please him to prosper the Trade and Manufactures of the People and the Labour of the Husbandman, that our Land may yet yield its Increase; To take Schools and Seminaries of Education, so necessary for cultivating the Principles of true Liberty, Virtue and Piety, under his nurturing Hand, and to prosper the Means of Religion for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom which consisteth “in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost.”

And it is further recommended, that servile Labour, and such Recreation as, though at other Times innocent, may be unbecoming the Purpose of this Appointment, be omitted on so solemn an Occasion.

Extract from the Minutes,

Charles Thomson, Secr.

Is this the sounds of a goverment whose intent was to open up America to ANY religious point of view which happenedto come her way?

Is this intolerance?

There are many more original documents that support this fact (which so many democrats choose to blindly overlook).

Next time you shove turkey into your mouth... remember that it was a bunch of "intolerant right-winged freaks" who set it into motion.

Give me a break!

Keino

08-26-2003, 05:04 PM

Skinz - Taken Directly from the Source:

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.

Im not sure why you cannot accept what the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND says. It is plain as day. Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can anyone be prevented from practicing.

As far as the foundation on Christina Values.....Hmmm. So slavery is a Christian Value? Or how about Genocide is that a Christian value? Here is a serious question.......Was Jesus Christ a Capitalist or Socialist?

BigCountry

08-26-2003, 06:00 PM

He's right. Maybe the constitutioners did have Christian values in mind when they jotted the damn thing down but I don't know since I wasn't there.

Right now however, I'm pretty sure no jury reads the old testament when deciding if someone is guilty or innocent. The bible is a thing of belief and not of law. Trust me here I come from a country that doesn't know the differance between church and state and it's not pretty. My family is not religious and we had no choice but to bury my Grandfather a month ago under some sort of religious supervision because that's the law over there. Marriages WILL NOT be recognized unless they're done according the Jewish law. If this judge is such a believer then that's fine, religion, and deffinately not a specific part of it should be kept out of court rooms.

Skinzaholic

08-26-2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by BigCountry
...religion, and deffinately not a specific part of it should be kept out of court rooms.

So in other words... we should support Aetheism.

It is not sound... the argument is full of holes and is only in support of those (like you yourself admit) who do not support any religion of any type.

Skinzaholic

08-26-2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Keino
Skinz - Taken Directly from the Source:

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.

If you are inferring that this proves that our nation was not founded on Christianity, you are sadly uninformed.

The writing of the Constitution and the First Amendment did not include ANY references to God at all NOT BECAUSE THEY SOUGHT TO EXCLUDE HIM... but because it was common knowledge and belief among the framers that decisions of religion were left up to the individual states... not the federal government.

The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.

Relationships between religion and civil government were defined in most state constitutions, and the framers believed it would be inappropriate for the federal government to encroach upon or usurp state jurisdiction in this area. State and local governments, not the federal regime, it must be emphasized, were the basic and vital political units of the day. Thus, it was fitting that the people expressed religious preferences and affiliations through state and local charters.

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities. . . - Thomas Jefferson - Second Inaugural Address - 1805

To use this to support the liberal claim that the framers didnt intend Christianity as their religion of choice is empty.

Skinzaholic

08-26-2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Keino

Im not sure why you cannot accept what the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND says. It is plain as day. Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can anyone be prevented from practicing.

That is exactly the reason for this discussion. By removing the 10 Commandments from the court room (and even punishing a judge for supporting them) Congress is allowing a court to do just that... prevent people from practicing.

The facts are very clear... and even the vain attempts to refute them are thin. There is currently a loud voice against Christainity in general...and they bumble through the Constitution trying to find anything at all to defend their point of view (anti-American as it is).

Skinzaholic

08-26-2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Keino

As far as the foundation on Christina Values.....Hmmm. So slavery is a Christian Value? Or how about Genocide is that a Christian value? Here is a serious question.......Was Jesus Christ a Capitalist or Socialist?

More quotes that prove a serious lack of education here. Slavery? EVERY race in various nations throughout history have taken part in slavery. It was a different society back then and they held different views (wrong as they were). In the end it was a good Christian man named Abraham Lincoln who ushered in this much needed change of policy.

Genocide... too stupid of a comment to even discuss. Total generalization. No point made here at all.

This also stands for the last comment.

Is it fair to label all Americans as homosexual simply because some in our country are openly practicing it?

Please.

Chief Seeway

08-26-2003, 11:36 PM

How does slavery seem to be included in almost all of our threads that deal with politics (or at least seem to)? This thread in particular has had some really good point/counter points then along comes slavery!?!?!?

A question for all that have posted here...

Do you think the monument should stay or go? (I cant seem to put a finger on it)

Me personally, I could care less if it is there. Same goes for a star of david or a pentagram(sp?) for that matter. Maybe I have thicker skin then most or maybe just because I see a symbol of a religion I dont freak out and demand that it be taken out of my site, it would be easier for me to shrug and go about my business.

Spence

08-27-2003, 12:10 PM

There is another issue here. The judge has been ordered to remove the monument by a superior court. His job is to obey that order. Do you know what happens if judges decide which rulings they want to honor and which they do not? I'll tell you what happens: We have no laws. And if we have no laws we have no civil society.

If the judge wants to become a political protestor and a political activist, that's fine. Let him do it. But he must set aside his robes first. It does not matter whether you agree with a ruling or not, judges MUST obey all rulings from higher courts. Not only is he breaking the law, he is undermining our very judicial system. Nobody has the right to do that. The issue has gone all the way to the Supreme Court and they saw fit to let the ruling stand. The judge refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of any authority aside from his own. That makes him a criminal.

Skinzaholic

08-27-2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Spence
There is another issue here. The judge has been ordered to remove the monument by a superior court. His job is to obey that order. Do you know what happens if judges decide which rulings they want to honor and which they do not? I'll tell you what happens: We have no laws. And if we have no laws we have no civil society.

If the judge wants to become a political protestor and a political activist, that's fine. Let him do it. But he must set aside his robes first. It does not matter whether you agree with a ruling or not, judges MUST obey all rulings from higher courts. Not only is he breaking the law, he is undermining our very judicial system. Nobody has the right to do that. The issue has gone all the way to the Supreme Court and they saw fit to let the ruling stand. The judge refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of any authority aside from his own. That makes him a criminal.

I agree 100% Spence. Judge Moore should have gone about this a different way. There are other ways to get power-hungry judges to change their ways... and refusing to follow a ruling is NOT the best way. That turns law into chaos.

Judge Moore is simply doing his part to make citizens aware of this in the first place. Just last year he won a court case regarding him having a tiny 10 commandments plaque on his wall in his office. So he then drags in this 5000 lb monument for one reason... to get the liberals to freak out... exposing the fact that judges are re-interpreting the law.

Looks like he has done just that... this isnt over yet... by a long shot.

Spence

08-27-2003, 12:48 PM

Well, it is over from a legal standpoint. It's been over for a while. The courts have been unanimous and clear on the subject. It isn't over politically. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find Judge Moore running for statewide office in Alabama soon. He seems more comfortable in the political arena than the legal one anyway.

Skinzaholic

08-27-2003, 12:57 PM

Actually it isnt over from a legal standpoint yet... Judge Moore has filed another case... and the people are demanding more done.

Im not sure where it will go... but I think the lawyers and judges are shooting themselves in the foot on this one. Sort of like skimming money off the top of the profits... then one day you skim a bit too much off...

Spence

08-27-2003, 01:24 PM

Skinz, he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Trust me. I say that not as a liberal, but as a lawyer. The politics of the entire thing are something else--especially in a place like Alabama. In order to do what he wants to do, Judge Moore does not need to file another case, he needs to find another Constitution.

Keino

08-27-2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
More quotes that prove a serious lack of education here. Slavery? EVERY race in various nations throughout history have taken part in slavery. It was a different society back then and they held different views (wrong as they were). In the end it was a good Christian man named Abraham Lincoln who ushered in this much needed change of policy.

Genocide... too stupid of a comment to even discuss. Total generalization. No point made here at all.

This also stands for the last comment.

Is it fair to label all Americans as homosexual simply because some in our country are openly practicing it?

Please.

Slavery is Completely relevant when you consider that one justification for Chattel Slavery was to "Christianize" the African Slaves. It becomes even more relevant when you consider that this Country's economic propsperity has much to do with the Slave Labor. I won't even go into the number of lives lost and families broken up as a result of Slavery. Did you know that in the plantation community it was forbidden for slaves to get married? Again, where are the Christian values you say were ever present in the very foundations of our country? We are speaking of the Moral foundations of our country are we not? Tell me how it is possible to be a Christian nation yet have laws and policies that Jesus Christ himself would've been opposed to?
I personally cannot make a distinction between the religion and those who practice it. When you claim something, you represent that in everything you do and don't do. That every other nation in history has practiced slavery is yet again, immaterial....we are speaking of the United States.

You make the same mistake that alot of revisionist historians make. Lincoln was not focused on the equality of human beings nor was he focused on ending Slavery......His focus was preserving the Union, at all costs. The end of slavery was a consequence of the war, not some Lincoln Political agenda. I am sure you will bring up the Emanciaption Proclamation....which had no effect on the slave states as they had already seceded from the union. You will note that it exempted the Slave holding Border States of Maryland and West Virginia...........

Why don't you go to an "Indian" reservation and ask somebody there if they think what occured to their people was genocide? Stupid, or too Real a Truth that must be confronted if you are going to say that this is a christian nation?

My point is simple. A Christian Government, with Christian ideals and morals would not particiapte in the dehumanization of their fellow men and women. Nor would they participate in practices that excluse people who are different. Jesus himself walked among the Dregs of society and Loved all. As you yourself have mentioned, Christian literally means "Christ-like". I'm saying that to call the founders of this nation Christ-like is a slap in the face of Jesus Christ.

That you quote Thomas Jefferson is absolutely hilarious to me. Great words, but lets look at his actions shall we? Here is a man who owned slaves and had illegitimate children with his slaves (without showing the love and affection a Parent should), but yet I am supposed to give great weight to his words when his actions don't supprt them.....To me Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite plain and simple. And don't give me this business of judging him by today's standards.......Im judging by what I know to be right and wrong.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men (read Human Beings) are endowed by their creator (Not Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, Ilohim or many of the other names given to God) with certain inalienable rights...Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Must've viewed his slaves a less than human except when he got a little fire in his pants that need Sally Hemmings to put out.........

I am not opposed to christianity, at all. I am opposed to anyone of any religion trying to force it on the rest of the country and on me specifically. The judge is free to display his endorsement of Judeo-Christianty in his own home, on HIS property and at his Church. Nobody is interfering with his ability to practice his religion. Again I say to you, If this country's laws were based on the 10 Commandments, why then are only 2 of the Commandments covered by American Law? If you value the 10 Commandments, why do you break one every Sunday by worshipping on the 1st day and not the 7th day as He commands of us?

Notice, I dont need to resort to labelling you uneducated because your perspective differs from mine...........As for your rhetorical question about Labelling Homosexuals etc...I'll answer yours if you answer mine. Would Jesus Christ be considered a Capitalist or a Socialist?

BigCountry

08-27-2003, 04:05 PM

Yeah the 10 commandments have nothing toi do with our modern law and it should stay that way. Are you gonna stone to death a kid that curses at his mother?

AGibbsGirl

08-28-2003, 02:23 PM

Morals

Belief in a higher power gives the majority of us morals and makes us better people.

This Alabama thing isn't about the Ten Commandments.

It's about Christians starting to be afraid that someday they will no longer be able to openly worship God. It's scary that so many people have so much anger toward Christians.

All you ever see in the media are the fanatics. Not the salt of the Earth people, who give of themselves everyday to make this world better.

It's no wonder people hate Christians, if all we ever do is blow up abortion clinics and kill little boys...

Spence

08-28-2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by AGibbsGirl
Morals

Belief in a higher power gives the majority of us morals and makes us better people.

This Alabama thing isn't about the Ten Commandments.

It's about Christians starting to be afraid that someday they will no longer be able to openly worship God. It's scary that so many people have so much anger toward Christians.

All you ever see in the media are the fanatics. Not the salt of the Earth people, who give of themselves everyday to make this world better.

It's no wonder people hate Christians, if all we ever do is blow up abortion clinics and kill little boys...
AGG, I don't hate Christians. I am one. And I know only a tiny minority endorse political violence. And an even tinier minority commit political violence. I don't think Christians need to worry about the right to worship openly in this country. That right is guaranteed in the Constitution. They just cannot use public property to worship God. That is forbidden by the Constitution. And I don't think many people are angry at Christians. Just a small and rambunctious minority. Believe it or not, most of us committed to separation of church and state are Christians.

People should remember that separation of church and state protects both from each other. Look at countries that have official churches. In Europe, the Catholic Church is either the official or semi-official church of many countries. Nobody goes to church in Western Europe [less than 10% of the population] and attendance is dropping in Eastern Europe is well. It is no better in parts of Europe where Protestanism is/was the official religion. Scandinavia is increasingly a post-Christian region of the world. In Britain, the only people who go to church--and there are not many--are those who do not belong to the official Church of England. Official ties between church and state turn priests/pastors/whatever into civil servants. It has been the ruination of the Christian religion in Europe and it would be the ruination of the Christian religion in the United States, as well.

One of the major reasons church attendance is so much higher in the United States [almost 50%] than in Europe is that churches are seen as independent of the government. The best way to ensure the continued survival and health of Christianity [or any other religion] in the United States is to maintain the level of separation of church and state that the U.S. has had for hundreds of years. Marrying the church to the state will not make either stronger, it will make both weaker.

Spence

09-02-2003, 12:41 PM

Skinz, I told you that you'd now hear about Judge Moore running for office. I have it on good authority he is now trying to drum up support to challenge Senator Richard Shelby [R-AL] in the 2004 primaries. Just thought you'd like to know. I'm sure Judge Moore wouldn't mind a contribution.

dukeuch

09-02-2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
That is exactly the reason for this discussion. By removing the 10 Commandments from the court room (and even punishing a judge for supporting them) Congress is allowing a court to do just that... prevent people from practicing.

The facts are very clear... and even the vain attempts to refute them are thin. There is currently a loud voice against Christainity in general...and they bumble through the Constitution trying to find anything at all to defend their point of view (anti-American as it is).

Even you, Skinz, must be able to see the difference between government promoting a particular religion and the right to express a religious belief. Nobody has a problem with the judge expressing his religious beliefs, but by displaying the Ten Commandments in fornt of the courthouse, it is then the government, in this case the judiciary, expressing that belief, which is clearly unconstitutional whether or not the American form of government ifs based on Christianity.

What would be your take if a Jewish judge displayed the Star of David, or excerpts from the Torah in this matter?

dukeuch

09-02-2003, 04:33 PM

jporterweb

09-04-2003, 03:02 PM

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.

Explain to me how putting a ten commandments monument in a public place is creating a law that establishes a religion for this country? Explain how it prohibits the free exercise of religion?

While we are at it. Explain to me how a principal saying a prayer over the intercom at a high school is establishing a religion by law. The stupid amendment states and is quoted above. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" It does not say, that religion and goverment can not touch. It just says basically that the goverment can not establish and force a religion. That's it. Prove to me that it says differently.

Spence

09-04-2003, 03:21 PM

For 200 years the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that any official sponsorship of religion amounts to a violation of the Constitution. The Ten Commandments is an explicity Judeo-Christian document. That's it.

jporterweb

09-04-2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Spence
For 200 years the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that any official sponsorship of religion amounts to a violation of the Constitution. The Ten Commandments is an explicity Judeo-Christian document. That's it.

Fine, but the constitution is what everyone stands on, and the constitution clearly states and ONLY states that congress may not create a law. I don't give a rats crap what the SC has said, I am saying they are wrong because that is not what it says.

Spence

09-04-2003, 04:13 PM

Federal laws trump state laws. If Congress can pass no law establishing a religion, neither may anyone else. The truth is, there are Ten Commandment relics in public buildings all over the country and nothing is done about it. There are Ten Commandment relics in the Supreme Court--several of them, in fact. But they are almost always small and unobtrusive. What the courts decided in this case--and what they will decide in all similar cases--is that placing a 5000 pound monument in the middle of the courthouse is a clear endorsement of Judeo-Christian religion.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court has stated that the Establishment Clause was intended to accomplish this end by erecting a "wall of separation between Church and State." Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).

It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961).

For the past 20 years, the federal courts have utilized the three-pronged framework first set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), to maintain the separation of government and religion. Under the so-called "Lemon test," a court must inquire (1) whether the government's action has a secular or a religious purpose; (2) whether the primary effect of the government's action is to advance or endorse religion; and (3) whether the government's policy or practice fosters an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

The courts have also frequently asked if a particular action represents an impermissible "endorsement" of religion. On that issue, as well, Judge Moore ran into trouble.

I wonder how people would feel if a Muslim judge placed a 5000 pound monument to the Koran in the middle of a courthouse in Lynchburg, Virginia. I suspect a lot of these Christians concerned about their freedom of religion would object. In fact, I'm damn sure of it.

jporterweb

09-04-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Spence
Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court has stated that the Establishment Clause was intended to accomplish this end by erecting a "wall of separation between Church and State." Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).

It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961).

For the past 20 years, the federal courts have utilized the three-pronged framework first set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), to maintain the separation of government and religion. Under the so-called "Lemon test," a court must inquire (1) whether the government's action has a secular or a religious purpose; (2) whether the primary effect of the government's action is to advance or endorse religion; and (3) whether the government's policy or practice fosters an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Ok, then why is it people are taught about all religions in school besides christianity? That is putting those religions above christianity. It's a double standard. I mean they teach what Japanese believe about Creation, about reincarnation, but not a word about Christianity. That in itself is wrong according to that above.

dukeuch

09-05-2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by jporterweb
Ok, then why is it people are taught about all religions in school besides christianity? That is putting those religions above christianity. It's a double standard. I mean they teach what Japanese believe about Creation, about reincarnation, but not a word about Christianity. That in itself is wrong according to that above.

First of all, you are nuts. Any school I attended (public, until college when I went to a Lutheran school) IF they talked about religion at all, was usually in a historic context, and usually in a "comparative" context, i.e. principles of eastern vs. islamic vs. western, etc. In no way was any religion promoted except sort of during the pledge of allegiance

Even if Christianity (how about let's call it "Western" instead, as i think that is more inclusive of what I THINK you guys are talking about) is not mentioned, it may be because the teaching of Western religions is readily available to American students in their own homes and churches, should their family practice such. Teaching about other religions, in other lands, teaches about the world beyond the average students scope of experience.

On the other hand, I assume you have experienced in whatever school you attended that Christianity was not mentioned or explained. How about Judiasm? Was that discussed/taught in your school? Think that should be taught too?
Have not heard many chime in about the lack of discussion of Judiasm in our public schools.

Spence

09-05-2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by jporterweb
Ok, then why is it people are taught about all religions in school besides christianity? That is putting those religions above christianity. It's a double standard. I mean they teach what Japanese believe about Creation, about reincarnation, but not a word about Christianity. That in itself is wrong according to that above.
Well, I can't speak for what schools you went to, but that wasn't the case in the schools I attended. For example, a Comparative Religions class I took in high school taught me about dozens of religions, though it focused mostly on the big western monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Taking Ancient History classes immerses you in the religion of places like Ancient Egypt, Rome, and Greece. Taking Medieval History courses likewise immerses you in the religion of early church and Catholicism. Later history courses teach about the Protestant Reformation, the branches of Calvinism, Zwinglism, and other Protestant splinter groups.

I was taught all about Christianity in my public schools here in suburban Maryland. Education is largely a local matter, though, so I cannot vouch for what is taught in Ohio. I grew up and still live in an area known for its great public schools, so I might not have received a typical education in this regard.

Spence

09-05-2003, 12:01 PM

Federal judge rejects commandments suit

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Bob Johnson

Sept. 5, 2003 | MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- In dismissing a lawsuit seeking to return a Ten Commandments monument to the lobby of the Alabama Judicial building, a federal judge said the 5,300-pound granite marker's removal demonstrates government neutrality toward religion.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson disagreed with a claim by the three residents who filed the lawsuit that the monument's removal would violate the constitution's protection of freedom of religion.

Thursday's ruling comes after a lengthy legal battle in a separate lawsuit that led to the Ten Commandments' removal last week. In that case, Thompson ruled the monument an unconstitutional promotion of religion by government.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Jim Zeigler said he has not decided whether to appeal Thompson's decision.

Suspended Chief Justice Roy Moore had the monument moved into the judicial building in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001, saying it represents the moral foundation of American law. The monument soon became a symbol of the fight over the separation of church and state, drawing hundreds of protesters to Montgomery who decried its removal.

Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, said the ruling "shows the courts are now defining neutrality as the removal of all acknowledgment of God from the public square."

But Ayesha Khan, an attorney for one of three groups that filed the original suit seeking removal of the monument, applauded the ruling.

"Judge Thompson recognized that Justice Moore's monument shoves religion down people's throats," Khan said.

Also Thursday, about 150 Moore supporters marched to the Alabama Capitol and presented a wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments to Gov. Bob Riley's chief of staff. The chief of staff said the governor would consult with lawyers before displaying the plaque.

A day earlier, a spokeswoman for Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove said Moore had turned down Musgrove's offer to publicly display the monument for a week at the Mississippi Capitol.

jporterweb

09-05-2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Spence
Well, I can't speak for what schools you went to, but that wasn't the case in the schools I attended. For example, a Comparative Religions class I took in high school taught me about dozens of religions, though it focused mostly on the big western monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Taking Ancient History classes immerses you in the religion of places like Ancient Egypt, Rome, and Greece. Taking Medieval History courses likewise immerses you in the religion of early church and Catholicism. Later history courses teach about the Protestant Reformation, the branches of Calvinism, Zwinglism, and other Protestant splinter groups.

I was taught all about Christianity in my public schools here in suburban Maryland. Education is largely a local matter, though, so I cannot vouch for what is taught in Ohio. I grew up and still live in an area known for its great public schools, so I might not have received a typical education in this regard.

I understand that you may have been taught this, but that is not my point. If it is something that is supposed to be handled on a national level, then it needs to happen there. My point is that my state just had a big thing on if they should teach creationism(not just christianity) but divine intervention of any type like they teach Evolution as our creation. If they really were worried about my religion getting equal time with those of other religions. I learned(although didn't pay much attention) what the japanese thought of creation, and buddhists and all that, but not a word about a divine creation. My point is that, if they are all to be equal it needs to be that way. They are worrying about taking a ten commandment block out of a rotunda instead of what people are being taught and making sure that everyone gets the same rounded teachings. You may have taken a religion class, but I did not. Yet in the social studies type classes I learned all about what people in India believes happens when they die. What those in China or Japan believe happens. But never what christians believes happens, or what jews believes happens. or even the freakin mormons... I was taught about who Mohammed(sp?) was, but never who Jesus was(also historically exsisted and was known as a great prophet, even if you don't call him the son of god.) My point of all this is that removing this block of stone is pointless when you look at the difference in the teachings in School.

dukeuch

09-05-2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by jporterweb
I understand that you may have been taught this, but that is not my point. If it is something that is supposed to be handled on a national level, then it needs to happen there. My point is that my state just had a big thing on if they should teach creationism(not just christianity) but divine intervention of any type like they teach Evolution as our creation. If they really were worried about my religion getting equal time with those of other religions. I learned(although didn't pay much attention) what the japanese thought of creation, and buddhists and all that, but not a word about a divine creation. My point is that, if they are all to be equal it needs to be that way. They are worrying about taking a ten commandment block out of a rotunda instead of what people are being taught and making sure that everyone gets the same rounded teachings. You may have taken a religion class, but I did not. Yet in the social studies type classes I learned all about what people in India believes happens when they die. What those in China or Japan believe happens. But never what christians believes happens, or what jews believes happens. or even the freakin mormons... I was taught about who Mohammed(sp?) was, but never who Jesus was(also historically exsisted and was known as a great prophet, even if you don't call him the son of god.) My point of all this is that removing this block of stone is pointless when you look at the difference in the teachings in School.

You make some sound points, but the overt support given ONE religion by a federal judge, on government property, is just on a different plain completely. If one accepts at all the notion that one specific religion should not be made "more legitimate" than others by the government, the judges actions are simply of a higher order than the examples you are citing here, and more overtly in violation of that concept.

Spence

09-05-2003, 01:44 PM

JPorter, if you are dissatisfied with your local curriculum, I'd suggest you form a pressure group and bring the issue to the attention of your local government and school board. As I noted, school curriculums are developed locally and unless there is a Constitutional issue involved, the courts are not involved in it. I guess I just don't see the connection between local school curriculum's in Ohio and a federal court decision made in Alabama.

Just for the record, the federal courts did not inject themselves into the Alabama issue. Our courts cannot do such a thing. The courts may only intervene if there is a "case or controversy," which is another way of saying the word lawsuit. People in Alabama, who presumably are allowed to care what goes on in the courthouses of their state, brought the case to the courts and the courts rendered the only possible decision.

The fact is, if Judge Moore had put a small Ten Commandments relic in his office, no one would have cared about it. That sort of thing happens all the time. Instead, Judge Moore wanted to make a religious and political point so he stuck a huge and obvious 5300 pound monument in the middle of the courthouse. It looks to me as if Judge Moore was practically begging someone to sue him. Mission: Accomplished.

jporterweb

09-05-2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Spence
JPorter, if you are dissatisfied with your local curriculum, I'd suggest you form a pressure group and bring the issue to the attention of your local government and school board. As I noted, school curriculums are developed locally and unless there is a Constitutional issue involved, the courts are not involved in it. I guess I just don't see the connection between local school curriculum's in Ohio and a federal court decision made in Alabama.

Just for the record, the federal courts did not inject themselves into the Alabama issue. Our courts cannot do such a thing. The courts may only intervene if there is a "case or controversy," which is another way of saying the word lawsuit. People in Alabama, who presumably are allowed to care what goes on in the courthouses of their state, brought the case to the courts and the courts rendered the only possible decision.

The fact is, if Judge Moore had put a small Ten Commandments relic in his office, no one would have cared about it. That sort of thing happens all the time. Instead, Judge Moore wanted to make a religious and political point so he stuck a huge and obvious 5300 pound monument in the middle of the courthouse. It looks to me as if Judge Moore was practically begging someone to sue him. Mission: Accomplished.

I wish I had the time and energy to start a pressure group, but I wouldn't be that good at it. I just don't have time to really invest a lot of time in backing up my stuff as you can tell here. But I did enjoy debating this with you and look foward to further debates(you think you could go a little easier on the law stuff next time Mr. Lawyer Man? lol)
:twak: :banghead: :smash: :sfight: :guillo: