• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

Would you feel the same way if it were a satanist monument or a monument displaying verses from the Quaran? I'll bet you that the same fundamentalists fighting to keep the Ten Commandments up would be fighting tear it down if it were displaying something from any religion but Christianity.

Pele was born of the female spirit Haumea, or Hina, who, like all other important Hawai'i gods and goddesses, descended from the supreme beings, Papa, or Earth Mother, and Wakea, Sky Father. Pele was among the first voyagers to sail to Hawai'i, pursued, legends say, by her angry older sister, Na-maka-o-kaha'i because Pele had seduced her husband. Pele landed first on Kaua'i, but every time she thrust her o'o (digging stick) into the earth to dig a pit for her home, Na-maka-o-kaha'i, goddess of water and the sea, would flood the pits. Pele moved down the chain of islands in order of their geological formation, eventually landing on the Big Island's Mauna Loa, which is considered the tallest mountain on earth when measured from its base at the bottom of the ocean.
The above quote was basically a story told by a National Park Ranger, a federal employee, to tourists in Hawaii. And in numerous National Parks, there are signs quoting Chief Seattle or someone with something like "The Earth is Our Mother and We must Honor Our Mother".

Of course, this stuff is religious nonsense (The earth clearly is not my mother) for most of us and non-believers like myself simply disregard it or enjoy the story. Not sure why so many people get so upset over the 10 Commandments but don't mind this other nonsense. I was raised as a Unitarian which has as a symbol the flaming chalice so that any flame, such as the Olympic torch, some emotional, religious strings for me but for others it is just a stupid thing burning.

But why do so many get so upset over silly things that provide comfort to others at no cost or pain to themselves? BTW, the 10 Commandments is more of a Jewish thing and there have been conflicts between Christians and Jews. Not sure how that establishes a religion.
 
Last edited:
Stealing, murdering, and committing perjury is illegal. It still goes on, of course, but it is illegal.

Apparently it's only illegal if someone is convicted, yes? Otherwise innocent until, which means many folks get off scott free especially on the side of the prosecutors so apparently perjury (I believe it's actually "thou shall not give false witness"), murder in my mind is killing with intent wherein self-defense is not present which includes wars and death penalty (though I don't believe the commandment is "murder" but instead "thou shall not kill" but I may be mistaken), and stealing...well the rich and owners of corporations have been stealing from their workers and taxpayers for most of our history without consequence.

So I beg to differ that these things are always illegal, hence not a commandment. Commandments are pretty black and white.
 
The above quote was basically a story told by a National Park Ranger, a federal employee, to tourists in Hawaii.
Describing a local religion's beliefs is not an establishment of religion. The Ranger is not telling anyone what to believe, he's describing historical information.

Putting a monument to the Ten Commandments on public lands is not the same as describing a religious belief. If the intent is to promulgate a religion, and it's on public land, it's a problem. Sometimes the courts let it slide because the intent is allegedly historical; e.g. if you have a display of 20 different historical legal documents that include the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta and the Constitution of the Athenians, and the Ten Commandments is one among many (and is not, for example, 20 times larger than the others), I'd say you have a decent argument in favor of historicity. Courts occasionally apply the "Lemon Test" to help determine whether or not a given display runs afoul of the injunction against an establishment of religion.


Not sure why so many people get so upset over the 10 Commandments but don't mind this other nonsense.
It depends upon the context of the display.

If there is a plaque that has a quasi-religious aspect (e.g. "the Earth is our mother") then even if it's religious in origin, it's not necessarily a problem. It may be historical in nature, its meaning may be secular, and so forth. If there is a plaque that basically says "this deity orders you to follow these legal principles," that's an establishment of religion.


But why do so many get so upset over silly things that provide comfort to others at no cost or pain to themselves?
Because some of us don't want a religion shoved down our throats by the state.
 
Describing a local religion's beliefs is not an establishment of religion. The Ranger is not telling anyone what to believe, he's describing historical information.

Putting a monument to the Ten Commandments on public lands is not the same as describing a religious belief. If the intent is to promulgate a religion, and it's on public land, it's a problem. Sometimes the courts let it slide because the intent is allegedly historical; e.g. if you have a display of 20 different historical legal documents that include the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta and the Constitution of the Athenians, and the Ten Commandments is one among many (and is not, for example, 20 times larger than the others), I'd say you have a decent argument in favor of historicity. Courts occasionally apply the "Lemon Test" to help determine whether or not a given display runs afoul of the injunction against an establishment of religion.



It depends upon the context of the display.

If there is a plaque that has a quasi-religious aspect (e.g. "the Earth is our mother") then even if it's religious in origin, it's not necessarily a problem. It may be historical in nature, its meaning may be secular, and so forth. If there is a plaque that basically says "this deity orders you to follow these legal principles," that's an establishment of religion.



Because some of us don't want a religion shoved down our throats by the state.


No, posting the Ten Commandments is not " promulgating " a religion.

If it were, which religion would it be " promulgating " ?

The Ten Commandments are pre-Christ which means modern Christians aren't bound by the old law of the Commandments, Islam believes the Commandments are a integral part of their Quaranic laws and ethics.

They also believe Moses was a Prophet and a Teacher.

The Constitution is very clear on this issue.

" Congress shall make NO LAWS respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

" Promulgating " doesn't equate to making laws.
 
Would you feel the same way if it were a satanist monument or a monument displaying verses from the Quaran? I'll bet you that the same fundamentalists fighting to keep the Ten Commandments up would be fighting tear it down if it were displaying something from any religion but Christianity.

Please publish a section of the Muslim roll of butt wipe that in the slightest way resembles The Ten Commandments. I don't see any Christian ties to the 10 as they should apply to all peoples of the world. It is ignornant Americans that attack anything that their beloved government does not like. Piss on the feds.
 
You are performing right up to my expectations of you talking around the q again. Once again, my question. Just answer it. Is that too much to ask, or are you only able to just keep dancing around it instead of giving an answer?

Do you or do you not have a problem if Muslims in a town put verses from the Quran on their government walls?

1) No, I do not.

2) You didn't ask that specific questio, so stop acting to my full expectations.
 
National News - WEAR ABC Channel 3

I get so sick of this idiotic crap. Nowhere in the Constitution is this judge's decision supported. No law has been passed by Congress that gives preference of one religion over any other in this case. This is nothing more than some dumbass getting all butt-hurt over the Ten being displayed and deciding to sue to get it removed.

Ah, there is an easy solution. Sell the lawn to someone else. As soon as it is on private land, it is legal.
 
So you don't mind the Flying Spaghetti monster monument on a city hall lawn? Or a large tablet with notable verses of the Quran? Or a menorah? An offering to the god Osiris? A statue of Aphrodite? What is okay or not or just a free for all so no one gets butt hurt over a religion being displayed?

City Hall should not have a lawn. Sell it. Then we can have FSM in full view.
 
Why do you think it should be there? What purpose does it serve? And why are you offended that it's not there?

There is a purpose in such monuments. Alone the fact that every culture has had them makes that pretty certain. There is a question as to whether it is smart to forbid it. But there is no question that the government should not be allowed to take sides in religious matters in the USA.
 
Describing a local religion's beliefs is not an establishment of religion. The Ranger is not telling anyone what to believe, he's describing historical information.

If there is a plaque that has a quasi-religious aspect (e.g. "the Earth is our mother") then even if it's religious in origin, it's not necessarily a problem. It may be historical in nature, its meaning may be secular, and so forth. If there is a plaque that basically says "this deity orders you to follow these legal principles," that's an establishment of religion.

Because some of us don't want a religion shoved down our throats by the state.

OK but I am not buying it. Someone telling some story about Jesus may simply be a local religion's belief and not establishing a religion but I doubt that argument would fly. Certainly a story or sign is not the same as telling someone what to believe. It is just words.
And a sign of the 10 commandments is about as much to do about shoving religion down our throat as some silly animism sign.
 
No, posting the Ten Commandments is not " promulgating " a religion.
Apparently the judicial system we have here would disagree with you. Case in point the OP
If it were, which religion would it be " promulgating " ?
Christianity
The Ten Commandments are pre-Christ which means modern Christians aren't bound by the old law of the Commandments
Then what's the fuss about if "modern christians" don't care about them either. Who then is fighting to keep them present? Aetheists? Muslims? Satanists? Oh that's right only the Christians
Islam believes the Commandments are a integral part of their Quaranic laws and ethics.
No they don't. The appear nowhere in the Quoran except in interpreting particular verses to equate to the same or similar meaning.
They also believe Moses was a Prophet and a Teacher.
This is my understanding as well
The Constitution is very clear on this issue.
Your right it is. Article 3 specifically places interpretation of the constitution in the USSC and it's inferior courts hands.
" Congress shall make NO LAWS respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
And we should all thank our lucky star's the framers were astute enough to place that clause in there.
" Promulgating " doesn't equate to making laws.
No one said it did. You created that assertion in order to try and defend your weak understanding of how our Government and legal system work. Ultimately it is the USSCs responsibility to interpret the laws and constitution not every Tom, Dick or Harry's. Don't like the Job they're doing? Elect the right people to nominate and confirm the Justices you would like to see benched. The funny thing is that the USSC is historically conservative in nature and friendly to Christian theology, particularly now, and even they seem to disagree with you.
 
Apparently the judicial system we have here would disagree with you. Case in point the OP

Christianity

Then what's the fuss about if "modern christians" don't care about them either. Who then is fighting to keep them present? Aetheists? Muslims? Satanists? Oh that's right only the Christians

No they don't. The appear nowhere in the Quoran except in interpreting particular verses to equate to the same or similar meaning.

This is my understanding as well

Your right it is. Article 3 specifically places interpretation of the constitution in the USSC and it's inferior courts hands.

And we should all thank our lucky star's the framers were astute enough to place that clause in there.

No one said it did. You created that assertion in order to try and defend your weak understanding of how our Government and legal system work. Ultimately it is the USSCs responsibility to interpret the laws and constitution not every Tom, Dick or Harry's. Don't like the Job they're doing? Elect the right people to nominate and confirm the Justices you would like to see benched. The funny thing is that the USSC is historically conservative in nature and friendly to Christian theology, particularly now, and even they seem to disagree with you.


One left wing activist judge's ruling does not a "Judicial System " make.

His ruling will be appealed, as it should be.

The Constitution is a document made of words written in ENGLISH.

The definition of those words has never changed.

The ONLY thing thats changed is how those words are interpreted as desperate activist seek to undermine our founding documents based on a variety of twisted motivations.

The Judges decision wasn't based on the definition of the First Amendment, it was based on his adherence to a twisted ideology

A Constitution thats " living '', or that can be corrupted based on the whims of extremely short sighted individuals is NOT a Constitution any more.

Also, you should educate yourself on the MANY connections between Islam and the Old Testament.

With the exception of the 4rth Comamndemnt they consider them a integral part of their Quaranic teachings.
 
One left wing activist judge's ruling does not a "Judicial System " make.
I am curioushow do you know this particular judge's political affiliation? Do you even know the name of the judge? Can you point to other rulings this judge has made that would support your claim?
His ruling will be appealed, as it should be.
Quite possibly
The Constitution is a document made of words written in ENGLISH.
Well at least you are correct about something regarding the constitution
The definition of those words has never changed.
I could go through the process of showing you how the definitions of words actually do change over time, but that lesson would be wasted on you. Besides it's the interpretation of the document that's important. And that job is left to the judicial system alone.
The ONLY thing thats changed is how those words are interpreted as desperate activist seek to undermine our founding documents based on a variety of twisted motivations.
Couldn't the same be said about your interpretation of it? Then again your interpretation (or mine for that matter) doesn't matter now does it?
The Judges decision wasn't based on the definition of the First Amendment, it was based on his adherence to a twisted ideology
Do you have any evidence that supports this assertion?
A Constitution thats " living '', or that can be corrupted based on the whims of extremely short sighted individuals is NOT a Constitution any more.
This is freaking precious! The fact that it is a "living" document ALLOWED for the insertion of the bill of rights. If it wasn't amendable you could not own guns, women couldn't vote and black people would still be slaves. Are you really asking for a revert to the Constitution where there is no Bill of rights or other ammendments?
Also, you should educate yourself on the MANY connections between Islam and the Old Testament.
I have many muslim friends some extremely devout, after reading your post I actually called one and ask re: the 10 commandments. You are completely wrong and / or misinformed.
With the exception of the 4rth Comamndemnt they consider them a integral part of their Quaranic teachings.
see above.
 
Please publish a section of the Muslim roll of butt wipe that in the slightest way resembles The Ten Commandments.
Nice.

From Comparing the Ten Commandments with verses from the Qur'an

17:22: Do not associate another deity with God.
47:19: Know therefore that there is no god but God.
73:8: Remember the name of your Lord and devote yourself to Him exclusively.

17:23-24: You shall be kind to your parents. If one or both of them live to their old age in your lifetime, you shall not say to them any word of contempt nor repel them, and you shall address them in kind words. You shall lower to them the wing of humility and pray: "O Lord! Bestow on them Your blessings just as they cherished me when I was a little child."

17:32: You shall not commit adultery. Surely it is a shameful deed and an evil way.

4:32: Do not covet the bounties that God has bestowed more abundantly on some of you than on others.

17:33: And do not take any human being's life - that God willed to be sacred - other than in [the pursuit of] justice."

25:72: And (know that the true servants of God are) those who do not bear witness to falsehood.

Oh, and keep in mind that Islam recognizes many religious texts and religious figures from Judaism and Christianity. Abraham and Moses both have prominent roles in Islam. Jesus also has a role, though he is classified as a prophet rather than a deity. It is very likely (if not certain) that the injunctions listed above were drawn from the Decalogue.


I don't see any Christian ties to the 10 as they should apply to all peoples of the world.
Uh. Have you actually read the Ten Commandments lately?

Does the 1st Commandment apply to Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians?
Should we start executing Hindus, for worshiping statues of Ganesh?
Is it illegal in the United States to take the name of the Lord in vain?
Why should a non-religious person care about the sabbath?

Do you really not see how 1, 2, 3, 4 are specific to Judeo-Christian religions?
 
Please publish a section of the Muslim roll of butt wipe that in the slightest way resembles The Ten Commandments. I don't see any Christian ties to the 10 as they should apply to all peoples of the world. It is ignornant Americans that attack anything that their beloved government does not like. Piss on the feds.

All 10? So you want to implement a world-wide christian theocracy? You're telling me that you honor the sabbath every weekend?

Only 3 are real laws, don't kill, don't steal, and don't bear false testimony. Adultery could be considered as a 4th depending on the state. If you think the other 6 should be enforced by the governments of the world, you need to present a good reason.

Our Bill of Rights is supposed to protect all forms of religion not deny religion.... Displaying the Ten Commandments is hardly pandering or even supporting a specific religion....

I'm not the biggest Bill Mahr fan (or hardly a fan at all) however he did once say something I completely agree with: "Since when did atheists turn into vampires?"

Since when did the US become an anti-religious nation?

The idea behind the First Amendment was to ban theocratic government - not ban religion.

It is perfectly constitutional for all religions to display their idols or religious symbols - even on alleged government or communal property.

Furthermore I find it ironic that most of our basic laws are derived from the Ten Commandments yet people, er better yet the atheist religion has a problem with them being displayed???

I would love to know which of the Ten Commandments these atheists disagree with? Either way they certainly disagree with our Bill of Rights....

Well, then, we should all just go down and put up our own statues all over government property. The Tesla, Buddha, and Mohammed statues are going to look great next to the buddy Jesus statue.

Oh, and are the statues I put up funded by the government or do only christians get the money for their stuff?
 
Last edited:
but can you tell me how having a monument on a piece of property is law?

The constitution prohibits law making on reglious matters
So you wold be OK then with a test making sure that say the next batch of senators were all Muslim? You know, an unwritten law, but just as effective?
 
Man, there are always crazies that want to ban something. I'm not one of them BTW, as a matter of fact I think "bans" are evil....
Yet when bans against gay marriage were struck down you opposed them. Nice hypocrisy...
 
It is not the funding but the message.
And what is the message? And what makes the message something that should not appear on state owned property? If the people of a certain community want to raise funds for a monument to Allah and the city council approves of that use, why should it be forbidden to a free people?
 
So you wold be OK then with a test making sure that say the next batch of senators were all Muslim? You know, an unwritten law, but just as effective?

as I stated the 1st amendment is a restriction placed on the federal government to make no law concerning religion, having a monument on public property is not law making.
 
Last edited:
1) No, I do not.

2) You didn't ask that specific question, so stop acting to my full expectations.

Others here can follow the conversation, and see for themselves how it went down. Now with that said, I can tell you for sure that your view is unconstitutional. From the Constitution of the United States......

"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."

There it is in black and white.

1) While it says Congress, The Supreme Court ruled, in Everson v. Board of Education (330 U.S. 1), that the Establishment Clause also applies to state and local governments, not just the federal government.

2) But what was on the mind of our forefathers, when the penned the First Amendment. It is pretty straightforward, when you look at this writing penned by Thomas Jefferson himself.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson

3) Now, while the meaning of the establishment clause is still up in the air, as to whether or not ANY religious symbols or writings are allowed to by put on public buildings, it is clear no government is allowed to pick and choose one religion over the other as to the choosing of those religious symbols or writings. For in doing so, they are "Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to other religions, as defined in the First Amendment. This is unconstitutional.

4) Now for the icing on the cake. How did our forefathers feel about religions other than Christianity? Thomas Jefferson again....

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. "

-Thomas Jefferson

That's right. Freedom of religion does not apply to just one religion. It applies to ALL religions, and no government is allowed to pick and choose which religions are going to be favored. If that upsets you, then maybe you should just move to a nation that practices theocracy, because that is exactly what you are promoting. You might try Iran. While the Mullahs there might disagree with which religion you would choose to foist on the people, they would certainly agree with you that government should be dictated by a single religion of their choosing. That is not only unamerican, but is a view that is dangerous to the American way of life itself.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom