• 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

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,660
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
National News - WEAR ABC Channel 3

BLOOMFIELD, N.M. (AP) -- A federal judge says a New Mexico city must remove a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments from the lawn in front of Bloomfield City Hall. The Daily Times reports (Federal judge rules Ten Commandments monument in front of Bloomfield City Hall violates First Amendment - Farmington Daily Times) that Senior U.S. District Judge James A. Parker issued a ruling Thursday in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, saying the monument constitutes government speech and has the "principal effect of endorsing religion."

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.


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?
 
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.
Why do you think it should be there? What purpose does it serve? And why are you offended that it's not there?
 
Would you feel the same way if it were a satanist monument or a monument displaying verses from the Quaran?

His name is "Faithful Servant"

What do you think?
 
I agree. The 1st amendment is about the government making laws for or against religion. It was never meant as a true separation of church and state clause. Making a monument to the 10 commandments is not a law. No matter how you look at it.
 
So you don't mind the Flying Spaghetti monster monument on a city hall lawn?
You mean like this?

Odd, the religious folk were all upset once atheists got their displays as well.
 

Attachments

  • ht_holiday_display_loudon_nt_111220_wblog.jpg
    ht_holiday_display_loudon_nt_111220_wblog.jpg
    49.5 KB · Views: 243
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?

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.

Why do you think it should be there? What purpose does it serve? And why are you offended that it's not there?

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 agree. The 1st amendment is about the government making laws for or against religion. It was never meant as a true separation of church and state clause. Making a monument to the 10 commandments is not a law. No matter how you look at it.

No, the wall of separation was a later idea.

Which doesn't make it a bad idea, not at all.

As for the Ten Commandments, they say:

You shall have no other Gods before me
You shall not make for yourselves an idol
You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy
Honor your father and your mother
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not give false testimony
You shall not covet

Only three of the ten are written into law in the USA: Murder, stealing, and false testimony. Should we write the rest of them into law? If not, why would they be on a government building?
 
I agree. The 1st amendment is about the government making laws for or against religion. It was never meant as a true separation of church and state clause. Making a monument to the 10 commandments is not a law. No matter how you look at it.

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.
 
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.

I agree. It was funded by private sources.
 
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.

They don't care much for natural law either. ;)
 
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.

I love this. Religious nonsense should never be a part of public buildings. Thank God for this ruling.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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....
 
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.

This is "censorship" of the government. I'm okay that we're limiting what the government can do or say.
 
but can you tell me how having a monument on a piece of property is law?

The constitution prohibits law making on reglious matters

Anything denoting religion on public property should not be allowed.

Church-and-State.jpg
 
Personally I think it should be allowed, AS LONG AS any other religion is also allowed to put their monuments up on the same grounds.
All or none.
 
Personally I think it should be allowed, AS LONG AS any other religion is also allowed to put their monuments up on the same grounds.
All or none.

That will piss off the right wing Christians to no end. But honestly you are right. Goose, gander.
 
Back
Top Bottom