Page 32 of 35 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 344

Thread: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

  1. #311
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,234

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by RogueWarrior View Post
    I love how this Wikipedia article was created in 2013. Seems the persecution didn't exist prior to that. Strange that, very strange. Almost like someone just made it up.

    Irrelevant.

    The Points outlining the intentions of Hitler's iniative to start a National Riech Church were NOT from Wikepedia.

    They were from a book I own called " The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich "

  2. #312
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Colorado mountains
    Last Seen
    01-03-15 @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,729

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Here we go...
    1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
    Self serving religious law Has nothing to do with the secular world.

    2. You shall not make idols.
    Self serving religious law . Has nothing to do with the secular world.

    3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
    Self serving religious law. Has nothing to do with the secular world.

    4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
    Self serving religious law. Has nothing to do with the secular world.

    5. ]Honor your father and your mother.
    Obeying and respecting anyone is something that should be earned ...not commanded by a supernatural edict.

    6. You shall not murder.
    Common humanity ...not observed by most monotheistic cultures. More people killed in the name of god that any other reason.

    7. ]You shall not commit adultery.

    8. You shall not steal.

    9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
    These three are just saying, be honest. Simple humanity and empathy should direct any human to these conclusions.

    10.You shall not covet.
    The basis of all materialistic societies and the driving force behind the free market.
    A strange rule for Americans to even pretend to condone.

    That leaves us with two.

    1. Be honest.

    2. Don't kill anyone.
    If you want to put these on the courthouse wall or on a stone in front of city hall ...
    Be my guest. No one will argue with you.


    With apologies to George Carlin.
    Last edited by Buck Ewer; 08-11-14 at 11:27 PM.

  3. #313
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of erecting monuments with the Ten Commandments on public property. See Van Orden v. Perry.
    The same day Van Orden was decided, the Supreme Court ruled another courthouse display UNconstitutional in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union. The difference was that the Van Orden display was clearly marked as a donation by a primarily secular civic group, had other symbology on it, and was one of a couple of dozen other monuments/displays. So the Court ruled it had a secular purpose of historical value.
    In McCreary, the purpose was held to be religious and therefore unconstitutional.

    Oh, and the Supreme Court first referenced the wall of desperation in Reynolds v United States in 1878. Everson was citing Reynolds.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  4. #314
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,979

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of erecting monuments with the Ten Commandments on public property.
    Not in all cases. When it's part of a larger display, and displayed primarily for historical ends, it's allowed. When it is classified as an establishment of religion, it is not allowed. As was decided in McCreary County v ACLU, which was issued the same day as Van Orden v Perry.


    Another loss for atheists, who can't stand the fact this country was founded by English Protestants and has had religion intertwined with its government from the beginning.
    Atheists have no problem recognizing that the colonies were inhabited by people fleeing religious persecution... or that some of those colonists turned right around persecuted some of their own citizens on religious grounds. By preventing the government from establishing a state religion, citizens would not have to fear a repeat of that kind of persecution from their own government.


    To hear these killjoys talk....
    A 6 foot monument ordering you not to commit adultery is your idea of fun?


    The Court's Establishment Clause decisions since Everson have made the "wall" between church and state into more of a flexible, permeable barrier.
    Everson expanded the separation of church and state from the federal level to the states. This extension was, in many ways, more important than the actual decision itself.

    As to the "flexible barrier," it's been nearly 70 years of courts trying to balance the need to separate church and state, and other issues such as freedom of expression. I doubt you'd be happy if the courts sided exclusively on the side of separation, at the expense of other rights.

  5. #315
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    The same day Van Orden was decided, the Supreme Court ruled another courthouse display UNconstitutional in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union. The difference was that the Van Orden display was clearly marked as a donation by a primarily secular civic group, had other symbology on it, and was one of a couple of dozen other monuments/displays. So the Court ruled it had a secular purpose of historical value.
    In McCreary, the purpose was held to be religious and therefore unconstitutional.
    Yes, I know about the companion case from Kentucky, and I know how the Court distinguished the two. Obviously the majority saw unacceptable coercion in the Kentucky case and not in the Texas case, and the factors you mentioned played a part in the different results. But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The claim I was responding to was that erecting monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments is only constitutional if done on private land. Van Orden proves that is not necessarily true.

    Oh, and the Supreme Court first referenced the wall of desperation in Reynolds v United States in 1878.
    In plain English, please. I don't even know what you're talking about.

    Everson was citing Reynolds.
    If you're going to claim the Court in Everson cited Reynolds--and I'm not claiming to know it did not-- give the exact citation to support your claim, instead of expecting me or someone else to comb through the whole damned decision trying to figure out what you're talking about. And while you're at it, tell us exactly what proposition you think the Court cited Reynolds for. I'm not going to waste much time disproving assertions you can't be bothered to support with specific references. But just from a quick search, I don't see any citation to Reynolds in Everson, nor is it obvious why the principle Reynolds stands for would have been important in Everson.

    And so I have no idea why you brought Reynolds up in a thread about religious symbols in the public square. It's not an Establishment Clause case at all, but a Free Exercise Clause case involving polygamy laws. The Reynolds Court held that the right to free exercise may not be used to excuse violations of criminal laws, and that making polygamy a crime did not violate that right--it prohibited a practice, and not a religious belief. Reynolds is usually cited to show how the Court at first interpreted the Free Exercise Clause far more narrowly than it was to do in later years.

    Employment Division v. Smith in 1990 was a stunning reversal of this trend toward broader interpretation, back toward the view in Reynolds. Smith was very unpopular, and Congress reacted by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It was the RFRA that was at issue recently in the Hobby Lobby decision. Did you bring up Reynolds because you want to turn this thread into a discussion of Hobby Lobby?
    Last edited by matchlight; 08-12-14 at 01:31 AM.

  6. #316
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,242

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Get it out of there. If you want your religious idols, put them up on private land.

    Unless you can handle statues for every silly religion.
    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

  7. #317
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,242

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    How about some meaningful 10 commandments?

    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

  8. #318
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Not in all cases. When it's part of a larger display, and displayed primarily for historical ends, it's allowed. When it is classified as an establishment of religion, it is not allowed. As was decided in McCreary County v ACLU, which was issued the same day as Van Orden v Perry.
    Justice Breyer was the swing vote in both those cases--his concurring opinion made the difference in Van Orden. Far from wrapping up the distinction in a neat rule, as you seem to want to do, he emphasized how these cases call for a subtle analysis of the facts to determine if the effect of a display is inconsistent with the values the First Amendment's two religion clauses express. Deciding each case on its particular facts is just the opposite of applying an established rule--it's what courts do when they do not have any clear rule to follow.

    The Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is as unclear and difficult as it gets. Lots of things seem to be governed by clear little rules to people who have very little understanding of them. Read Lynch v. Donnelly and Allegheny County together, and then explain to us exactly what the rule on Christmastime displays in public places is. That is, if you can.

    And I wonder how you would fit Capitol Square Review Board into your rule about the Establishment Clause question turning on "part of a larger display," "primarily for historical ends," etc. The Court held that crosses the KKK was allowed to erect on public land across from the Ohio state capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause, and yet they were neither part of a larger display nor displayed primarily for historical purposes. Tell us how that squares with McCreary County.

    Atheists have no problem recognizing that the colonies were inhabited by people fleeing religious persecution...
    Escape from religious persecution was only one reason people first came from England to America, and it played no part in the decision of many of them.

    or that some of those colonists turned right around persecuted some of their own citizens on religious grounds. By preventing the government from establishing a state religion, citizens would not have to fear a repeat of that kind of persecution from their own government.
    I don't think that's a very accurate statement of the motivation for the Establishment Clause. A number of the states had their own official religions, and although enforcing them had caused a lot of resentment, that hadn't made the states generally abandon the idea. But even granting there was general agreement in 1791 that the United States should not have a national religion like many other countries had, it's far from clear the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent the federal government from generally supporting Christianity. I'm not going to debate here how much the Establishment Clause was meant to do beyond prohibiting an official religion--but the question is highly debatable.

    A 6 foot monument ordering you not to commit adultery is your idea of fun?
    Ah, what wit! Adultery has traditionally been a crime in most states, if not all. If the majority of a state's residents want to promote their belief that adultery is immoral and unacceptable by making it a crime, that's their business, and no one else's. What I personally think of the commandment against adultery, adultery laws, etc. is irrelevant.

    My concern is the right of Americans to celebrate and promote traditional American culture and values in the face of harassment by America-loathing atheists who ironically call themselves "liberal." What they really are is today Puritans--self-righteous, close-minded prigs who want to boss around everyone they think is less morally enlightened than they are.

    Everson expanded the separation of church and state from the federal level to the states. This extension was, in many ways, more important than the actual decision itself.
    Again, that's not an accurate statement. Everson was the Court's first real Establishment Clause decision, period. So it had no cases declaring any separation of church and state to expand to anything. It was only in Everson that Justice Black declared that phrase from Thomas Jefferson's letter to be the law. Everson applied the Establishment Clause to the federal government and the states at the same time.

    As to the "flexible barrier," it's been nearly 70 years of courts trying to balance the need to separate church and state, and other issues such as freedom of expression. I doubt you'd be happy if the courts sided exclusively on the side of separation, at the expense of other rights.
    Right idea, wrong freedom. It's not the freedom of speech that overly strict interpretations of the Establishment Clause threatens, but the right to free exercise of religion. As the Court has discussed (in Zorach v. Clauson, for example) there is some tension between the two religion clauses, so that pushing the Establishment Clause too far may violate the Free Exercise Clause.

    If a fire breaks out in the kitchen at First Baptist as the ladies in the flock are busily preparing for the church bake sale, shouldn't the city fire department just let it burn? After all a municipal government is only a creature of the state where it's located. And if the Establishment Clause means strict separation of church and state, we can't have the state government helping a church, can we?

  9. #319
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,756

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    LOL !

    Yes, Hitler who was responsible for the liquidation of millions of Jews was a follower of a Judeo-Christian religion....riiight...
    Yup, followed Martin Luther, a noted anti-Semite who wanted to throw all of the Jews out of their houses, confiscate all of their property and if they didn't like it, he said they were welcome to whine to their God. But I'm sure you're not aware of that either. History doesn't seem to be your subject.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  10. #320
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    I don't know what Hitler has to do with anything but the godwin is stupid.

Page 32 of 35 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •