Page 33 of 35 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 344

Thread: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

  1. #321
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    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.
    My point was that you didn't say it wasn't necessarily true...you wrote "The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of erecting monuments with the Ten Commandments on public property." No qualifications or stipulations or distinctions. Someone not familiar with the law would have been lead to believe by your statement that any and all 10C monuments would be acceptable.
    The Court has consistantly ruled that religious symbols/messages that are part of a historical display or overall secular purpose are perfectly acceptable. But when the intent or purpose is or could appear to be, purely religious, then that is getting into the realm of endorsement.


    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy
    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.
    It meant fat fingered typing and bad spell-check. It should have been "wall of separation." You claimed Everson was the first reference to Jefferson's Wall of Separation from the Danbury Baptists letter. It was Reynolds, and the Everson Court was citing Reynolds with that reference.



    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.
    That's odd. You talk about Everson being the first mention of the Wall of Separation, but the reference to it is "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164. " directly citing Reynolds.

    My point was that your claim that "The "wall of separation" language from Thomas Jefferson's letter of reassurance to a nervous religious group was never the law until 1947" was false. It was first used by the SCOTUS in Reynolds in 1878....69 years earlier than your claim. That makes a difference.
    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.

  2. #322
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,224

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    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.

    He executed, persecuted and targeted Christian clergy because the Church doctrine wasn't compatible with Nazi ideology.

    Unlike you my History lessons aren't limited to 5 minute Google searches.

    And wanted to create a National Reich Church that worshipped Germany and HIM instead of God.

    And I asked for a date for those quotes.

  3. #323
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    The Ten Commandments are one of the foundational legal statements of mankind. They are entirely appropriate to posted in front of a courthouse. The examples you give are NOT part of the foundational legal examples of our society, the Ten are (along with several other documents). This is the reason they are there an as such, they should be left alone. It's why we haven't removed all the rest of the examples of the Ten from our federals buildings, because they represent one of the core documents of our legal system.

    Now, I'll most likely be accused of stating that the Ten are the foundation of our laws, which I most certainly am not stating. They are a part of it, but not the whole of it.
    I don't mind if the 10 commandments are in monument form outside of a court so long as the court rules by the laws of man, not the laws of god. But laws, even those which formed the basis for some of their modern corellaries, predate the Bible and the 10 Commandments.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #324
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,874

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    thatS correct, the 1st is a restriction placed on the federal government to make no LAWS concerning religion,

    having a monument on a piece of property is not..... LAW.
    No, it's actually blasphemy. We know what goes on in the building of blind justice. As many wrongs as rights.

  5. #325
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    The Ten Commandments are one of the foundational legal statements of mankind. They are entirely appropriate to posted in front of a courthouse. The examples you give are NOT part of the foundational legal examples of our society, the Ten are (along with several other documents).
    And as part of a display/monument with other such documents, there would be no issue. For example, on the East Pediment of the Supreme Court Building is a sculpture of Moses, Confucius, and Solon, while inside are two friezes which have depictions of Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon.

    But the 10C, by themselves, or as the sole non-U.S. law in a display implies that U.S. law is based on the Commandments.
    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.

  6. #326
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,978

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Far from wrapping up the distinction in a neat rule....
    I did not intend to suggest that the rule was "neat" or "easy." The borders for this kind of thing are undoubtedly fuzzy, which is one reason why they keep cropping up in the courts. But that is the general principle: If it seems to be establishing a state religion rather than displaying a historical element, it's problematic. Thus, some but not all 10 Commandment displays do in fact get removed from public spaces.


    The Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is as unclear and difficult as it gets.
    What else is new? We could say the same for freedom of expression, for segregation, obscenity ("I know it when I see it"), for all sorts of issues. The complexity in implementation, however, does not prove that the underlying principles are excessively complicated.


    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.
    It's in the nature of how that public area had been used as a "public forum" for years, and the cross was planted right next to a menorah set up by another group of citizens. Sorry, I forgot to mention that particular exception.

    At any rate, like I said: It's all about the context. In that case, the context of that space was sufficient to make it clear that the cross was not set up by the state as an attempt to command citizens to follow a religion.


    Ah, what wit! Adultery has traditionally been a crime in most states....
    You're missing the point. Atheists are not "killjoys" because they don't want a state-sanctioned religion shoved down their throats. Nor do such ad hominems help your cause.


    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."
    Then this case should give you absolutely no cause for concern.

    If you want to promote "traditional values" (whatever the hell that means), no one is stopping you. Just do it on private property, or in a space that is set up as a public forum. Problem solved.


    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.
    Please, spare us the ad hominem attacks.


    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.
    Uh, no. In this case, and in many other cases, it's freedom of expression. Just look at... Capital Square.


    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?
    Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The "separation of church and state" does not mean "the state shall provide no services whatsoever to any religious entity." Absolutely nothing in my argument lends itself to such wild misinterpretations.

  7. #327
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,755

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    He executed, persecuted and targeted Christian clergy because the Church doctrine wasn't compatible with Nazi ideology.
    Um, the Catholic Church vehemently supported Hitler until it became painfully obvious that he was out of his mind and going to lose. After the war, they smuggled Nazi war criminals out of Germany under Catholic Red Cross visas. The churches in Germany celebrated Hitler's birthday every year. Yeah, these people look pretty persecuted, don't they?

    priests-salute.jpg
    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!

  8. #328
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    It is truly one of the most bizarre concepts to come out of this nation's political wrong-wing—the idea that the First Amendment is an excuse, or even a requirement, for this sort of censorship and suppression of the very things it was intended to protect.
    Ahhh the ill-informed martyr, there is no censorship, no suppression- it is a strong and ancient tradition of render unto Caesar and all that. Since the days of Kings and strong Church holdings there has been a striving to keep Church and State apart... course back then the Church fought to keep the king's fingers out of their coffers and off their vast Church land holdings.

    Many neo-martyrs forget history- the centuries of struggle the Church and State had... from popes wanting to control the kings to kings wanting to seize church profit and lands to pursue grandiose plans. No less than Martin Luther held there were two realms, as did James Madison.

    Modern Martyrs try a variety of dodges to push their religion to the fore- from calling the basic tenants of Christianity a 'cultural' thing TW Shannon and Oklahoma's 10 commandments monuments to making a big show of 'private donations' to put religious monuments on public lands. (now let a 'heathen' bunch want to do the same thing and suddenly there is a problem)

    The Church is safe, thanks to the 1st A. What it isn't of some's liking is the efforts of most people, even self proclaimed Christians, to keep the Government open to all without regard to Faith. Neo-martyrs can bemoan all they want, they can pretend the separation is a new deal in American history- but fantasy doesn't do well in the real world....

  9. #329
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,224

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Um, the Catholic Church vehemently supported Hitler until it became painfully obvious that he was out of his mind and going to lose. After the war, they smuggled Nazi war criminals out of Germany under Catholic Red Cross visas. The churches in Germany celebrated Hitler's birthday every year. Yeah, these people look pretty persecuted, don't they?

    priests-salute.jpg
    Yes, you have some personal hang ups with Christians for some reason.

    Your problem, not mine.

    Initially all Germans got behind Hitler and churches too.

    Thats why I asked for dates....... you failed to supply them.

    Hitler didn't " lose his mind. He appealed to anyone and everyone just like a good Politician would.

    Once he gained power revealed his true nature and that ofcourse led to Religious and cultural persecution.

    Hitler designed some of the NAZI symbolism that was paraded around throughout the 30s and 40s including the Swastika.

    If he was such a believer why didn't he include Christian symbolism ?

  10. #330
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,755

    Re: Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    If he was such a believer why didn't he include Christian symbolism ?
    What, you mean like these?

    buckle.jpgChaplinvisor.jpgCrossSwastika1.jpgDeutscheChristenBadge.jpgMothersCross.jpg

    There are plenty of other examples. And don't make me pull out all of the Nazi symbolism found in German churches of the day either, I can do that.

    You have no clue what you're talking about.
    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!

Page 33 of 35 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 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
  •