• 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

Fenton said:
Lol !

The ruling of a left wing activist judge doesn't change the definition of the words in the Constitution either.

His ruling will be appealed, as it should be.

The standard isn't you or some clown activist who's wearing a black robe.

The standard is the document itself and its meaning is unequivocal.
Click to expand...
Activist judge: noun. A member of the judicial branch you disagree with.
 
Fenton said:
Actually Atheism is a religion.

It requires faith in the unkown too.
Click to expand...

What an inan concept. Not believing in a concept for which there is no supporting evidence does not somehow make it a religion.
 
apdst said:
Is the belief in unicorns a religion?
Click to expand...

You tell me. I'm not the one making an assertion that not believing in those things for which there is no physical proof is somehow a religion.
 
Summerwind said:
Oh, nice try, but tooooooo funny! I'm not the one claiming a belief, I'm looking at it in cold, hard facts; it has no connection to our legal or our governmental system, it is archaic and stupid, and therefore has no place in the public or governmental arena.

I repeat, if not having a display threatens your faith, you don't have any faith.
Click to expand...

Sure you are. You believe there's no god. Is it your fear of being converted, or is it purely political? Because I never see y'all going after non-Christian symbols.
 
apdst said:
Sure you are. You believe there's no god. Is it your fear of being converted, or is it purely political? Because I never see y'all going after non-Christian symbols.
Click to expand...
You wish, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
 
faithful_servant said:
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.
Click to expand...

You might think the judge should not have decided to rule in the way that he did, but you cannot say the person who decided he did not want to be confronted by this large and very very obvious religious statement that prominently on "government land" and decided to sue to get it removed is a dumbass.

I think it is very wrong when a lot of conservatives keep pointing to the constitution to get their way but then turn around when someone else blast someone as a dumbass for doing the same.

Because even before the holy second amendment (according to a lot of Americans) there is something like the first amendment:

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.
Click to expand...

Because not only has this "dumbass" the right to think that this eyesore (because it is big and very "present" for any visitor of the place that ought to represent everybody in Bloomfield, and not just the people who believe in the bible) is almost tantamount to establishing of religion but he has even a bigger right.

He has the right, as stated in the first constitution, to petition the government for a redress of grievances. And that is exactly what he did and the judge ruled in his favor. You can be angry about that, but just like Hobby Lobby has the right to petition the courts for the ACA rules, this person had the right to petition the courts for his problem with this monument. I think it is very unfair to say he is a dumbass.

And FYI The dumbass won!!
 
Let me know when a religious group can put this
2aipj80.jpg


or this up
2h2jjug.jpg
 
apdst said:
I wish a happy and healthy life for you. That's about it.
Click to expand...
Aw, aren't you sweet. :vomit: There is no evidence in the majority of your posts to indicate this is anything but bull dung.
 
faithful_servant said:
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.
Click to expand...

1. Civilization existed and laws existed long before some Hebrew Scribes recorded the Ten Commandments around 6th century BCE.

2. The first 4 of the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with modern law or morality, and are simply religious commandments.

3. This notion of "nowhere in the Constitution is this Judge's decision supported" reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the constitution works and how constitutional law is interpreted on your part. What you, me, or any other Joe Blow out there thinks is in the constitution is irrelevant. The constitutional role of the courts is to interpret the constitution. If the federal courts rule that you have a constitutional right to a federal employee wiping your ass for you, then for all in intents and purposes you have that constitutional right until the decision is overturned. In this case, the courts have consistently ruled for decades that the state cannot promote, compel, or endorse specific religious beliefs. Placing a monument depicting the Ten Commandments in front of City Hall is a clear example of using the state to endorse a religious belief. Your getting upset about its removal is all the more evidence of that.
 
Thrilla said:
interesting... why do you only have a problem with Chritians stuff going up?
Click to expand...
I think he was pointing out that the people that are upset at this ruling would attempt to deny displays of other religions (in this case Satanism) from public spaces whilst defending their position of keeping the 10 commandments there. In other words they're asking that the government provide preferential treatment to one religion over another. Basically I believe he was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the situation.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
1. Civilization existed and laws existed long before some Hebrew Scribes recorded the Ten Commandments around 6th century BCE.

2. The first 4 of the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with modern law or morality, and are simply religious commandments.

3. This notion of "nowhere in the Constitution is this Judge's decision supported" reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the constitution works and how constitutional law is interpreted on your part. What you, me, or any other Joe Blow out there thinks is in the constitution is irrelevant. The constitutional role of the courts is to interpret the constitution. If the federal courts rule that you have a constitutional right to a federal employee wiping your ass for you, then for all in intents and purposes you have that constitutional right until the decision is overturned. In this case, the courts have consistently ruled for decades that the state cannot promote, compel, or endorse specific religious beliefs. Placing a monument depicting the Ten Commandments in front of City Hall is a clear example of using the state to endorse a religious belief. Your getting upset about its removal is all the more evidence of that.
Click to expand...
Finally someone here remembers basic civic

legislative = enact / make laws
executive = execute laws
judicial = interpret laws
public = put people in the: legislative / executive / judiacial positions
 
apdst said:
Technically, they can't. Why aren't the atheists going after the satan monument in Oklahoma City?
Click to expand...
Because it hasn't been approved, let alone installed. Legally, there is nothing to go after.

The 10 Commandments monument in Oklahoma City is under legal review, and the city council is refusing to consider any additional monuments until the case is resolved.
 
Swit said:
I think he was pointing out that the people that are upset at this ruling would attempt to deny displays of other religions (in this case Satanism) from public spaces whilst defending their position of keeping the 10 commandments there. In other words they're asking that the government provide preferential treatment to one religion over another. Basically I believe he was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the situation.
Click to expand...

yes, I know... the habit of using an extreme comparisons in order to prove some sort of hypocrisy is rather common on political forums.

"Let me know when a religious group can put this"...that's not a statment in opposition to those particular symbols going up. <shrugs>

overall, I don't care much...allow em', disallow em'.. whatever..... on a 1 to 10 scale, 1 being unimportnat... 10 being super important,.
this issue registers around a .0000001
 
Thrilla said:
yes, I know... the habit of using an extreme comparisons in order to prove some sort of hypocrisy is rather common on political forums.

"Let me know when a religious group can put this"...that's not a statment in opposition to those particular symbols going up. <shrugs>

overall, I don't care much...allow em', disallow em'.. whatever..... on a 1 to 10 scale, 1 being unimportnat... 10 being super important,.
this issue registers around a .0000001
Click to expand...

While I agree with you on the importance meter part..... It's not an extreme example. Satanism IS a federally recognized religion. I had the option of selecting from something like 36 different religions (of which Satanism was one) as a religion placed on my dog tags when I was in the Marine Corps, and if a particular state allows a Christian display and simultaneously denies a Satanic display they are in fact providing preferential treatment for one religion over another, which is obviously specifically prohibited by the constitution (or at least the USSC interpretation of it, which ultimately is all that matters).
 
Dittohead not! said:
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:



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?
Click to expand...

That is the most logical argument. Well done.
 
Thrilla said:
are you one of those " religion shouold be banned" type of commies?
Click to expand...

No. It shouldnt be celebrated in public office. One of the "type of commies" believing "God" shouldnt be in the pledge, on our cash, in our motto, or used on any government sanctioned event.
 
Swit said:
While I agree with you on the importance meter part..... It's not an extreme example. Satanism IS a federally recognized religion. I had the option of selecting from something like 36 different religions (of which Satanism was one) as a religion placed on my dog tags when I was in the Marine Corps, and if a particular state allows a Christian display and simultaneously denies a Satanic display they are in fact providing preferential treatment for one religion over another, which is obviously specifically prohibited by the constitution (or at least the USSC interpretation of it, which ultimately is all that matters).
Click to expand...

sure stanism is a regligion... but it's an extrem example because it's a wild fringe religion (in comparion to the major popular ones)
a more apt comparison would be of islamic or jewish symbols

my dog togs , around 1980 or so, said "infidel"
it pays to have friends in the S-1 shop. ;)
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No. It shouldnt be celebrated in public office. One of the "type of commies" believing "God" shouldnt be in the pledge, on our cash, in our motto, or used on any government sanctioned event.
Click to expand...

well, I guess you'll have to settle for not having momuments..everythign else you listed is allowable. :lol:

as an aside, what is your position on taxing churches?.... do you like them having tax exempt status, or do you want them to pay taxes?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Since when did the US become an anti-religious nation?
Click to expand...

Straw man argument. This ruling says nothing about America being religious or anti-religious. It's about mixing church and state. A terrible and horrifying no-no... if you want a stronger time-line argument made for you... here you go:

United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion -- American diplomat Joel Barlow wrote and President John Adams endorsed @ the Treaty of Tripoli 1797​
 
Last edited:
Summerwind said:
Aw, aren't you sweet. :vomit: There is no evidence in the majority of your posts to indicate this is anything but bull dung.
Click to expand...

Liberals are impossible to get along with. :roll:
 
Thrilla said:
sure stanism is a regligion... but it's an extrem example because it's a wild fringe religion (in comparion to the major popular ones)
a more apt comparison would be of islamic or jewish symbols

my dog togs , around 1980 or so, said "infidel"
it pays to have friends in the S-1 shop. ;)
Click to expand...
Lol.... yeah I actually always wanted some flying spaghetti monster ones but never got them.
Can you explain a little more than it's extreme? I mean it is Federally recognized. I understand its a very offensive religion to the Christians.... but by the same note Christianity is probably extremely offensive to Satanists. Are you implying that just because its a "fringe" (low population?) religion, the governement should be allowed to discriminate against it (i.e. denying their permit for placement of their display whilst granting the Christian one)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom