• 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 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...

I'm joining the conversation late, but I hate to tell you that the monument is on government property so your only other choice would have been to let every other religion and their brother's sister put up a like monument. The whole thing skirts very very close to being unconstitutional, so in my vew the judge was exaclty right in not wanting to open that can of worms.
 
ernst barkmann said:
I did not make the claim Christianity was on the USSC, I stated Moses and the 10 commandments was....and he and they are.

Providence in general, or foresight, is a function of the virtue of prudence, and may be defined as the practical reason, adapting means to an end. As applied to God, Providence is God Himself considered in that act by which in His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized. That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and in particular that man should glorify Him, recognizing in nature the work of His hand, serving Him in obedience and love, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God. The universe is a system of real beings created by God and directed by Him to this supreme end, the concurrence of God being necessary for all natural operations, whether of things animate or inanimate, and still more so for operations of the supernatural order. God preserves the universe in being; He acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities. In spite of sin, which is due to the wilful perversion of human liberty, acting with the concurrence, but contrary to the purpose and intention of God and in spite of evil which is the consequence of sin, He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created. All these operations on God's part, with the exception of creation, are attributed in Catholic theology to Divine Providence. Hitlers speech is not law, the declaration is, with its founding principles.

Though the term Providence is applied to God only three times in Scripture (Ecclesiastes 5:5; Wisdom 14:3; Judith 9:5), and once to Wisdom (Wisdom 6:17), the general doctrine of Providence is consistently taught throughout both the Old and New Testaments

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Divine Providence




book 1 of u s code, has a very very large preface I believe about 55 pages, but page 1 of the book is the declaration.

read the enabling acts law of the u.s. of 1906 ...section 3, as well as others, it states that a state constitution must not be repugnant to the constitution or the declaration of independence.
Click to expand...

I dont care what you religious doctrine says.

And quit making **** up the Front Matter is before TITLE 1

OLRC Home There is no such preface other than the Front Matter.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I dont care what you religious doctrine says.

And quit making **** up the Front Matter is before TITLE 1

OLRC Home There is no such preface other than the Front Matter.
Click to expand...

if the founders had not wanted anything of god in the declaration they would have not put in ......Divine Providence.....but kept such a thing out.

i am sorry for you, because you cannot accept things..if you had looked you would have seen the declaration on page 1

your were wrong about Moses and wrong about the declaration....
 
Last edited:
ACT OF CONGRESS (1864)
ENABLING THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA TO FORM A
CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT

Sec. 4.
Authorization to form constitution and state government; limitations.
And be it further
enacted,
That the members of the convention, thus elected,
shall meet at the capital of said territory on the
first Monday in July next, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said territory,
that they adopt the constitution of the United States. Whereupon the said convention shall be, and it is
hereby, authorized to form a constitution and state government for said territory:
Provided,
That the
constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States,
and the principles of the Declaration of Independence:
And provided further, That said convention shall
provide, by an ordinance irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of said
state:—
First. That there shall be neither slavery nor invo
luntary servitude in the said state, otherwise than in the
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state
shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship.
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right
and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain
at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United
States residing without the said state shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents
thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which
may hereafter be purchased by, the United States.
Nevada Constitutional Debates and Proceedings, p. 6

AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

(Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]


SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:





http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/front matter
Front matter
noun

: the pages at the beginning of a book before the main part
Full Definition of FRONT MATTER
: matter preceding the main text of a book
See front matter defined for English-language learners »
Examples of FRONT MATTER

The conventions of the book are explained in the front matter.

First Known Use of FRONT MATTER
circa 1909
 
Last edited:
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...
Wether it stays or goes it's no big deal either way.
 
americanwoman said:
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?
Click to expand...
California has a Greek Goddess in the state seal, and no one cares.
 
Moot said:
No. The SCOTUS ruled on THAT case and it doesn't apply to the one we are discussing. But this one does....


McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The reason Van Orden v. Perry was ruled constitutional was because the TC monument was located in a park that included 17 other monuments that depicted or represented the history of Texas. The monument itself was not a stand alone religious symbol located on or in the City Hall or courthouse proper like the monument in the McCreary County case or this one.


Applying the Lemon Test.....


The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:

1.The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong)

2.The statute must not advance or inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)

3.The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (also known as the Purpose Prong)

If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Just to point out that here hasn't been any clear consensus among the justices for the Lemon test, at least in its original form, for 25 years now. Five members of the current Court probably would not find an Establishment Clause in most cases without evidence of some pretty direct government coercion to affirm religious beliefs.
 
ernst barkmann said:
if the founders had not wanted anything of god in the declaration they would have not put in ......Divine Providence.....but kept such a thing out.

i am sorry for you, because you cannot accept things..if you had looked you would have seen the declaration on page 1

your were wrong about Moses and wrong about the declaration....
Click to expand...

I was not wrong about Moses. I clearly wrote that Moses was carrying tablets representing the 10 Commandants of the Old Testament. You mistakenly thought the one photo (without Moses in it) was the Commandments but I corrected you by showing proof that it was the Bill of Rights. The place that the Commandments show up is with Moses holding them. And history shows that the figures on the Supreme Court Building are there to represent examples of law, in a non religious way.

The Declaration of Independence pre-dates the US Constitution. US code in its Front Matter shows the secession of organic law (the Declaration being the first Constitution flowed by the Articles of Confederation) It is ignorant to believe that all of those Constitutions are in force and are law. The only Constitution that is the law of the land is the last one the US Constitution. Again what kind of nutty world would there be 4 constitutions?

As I said Moses was never a Christian symbol.

And stop that bait and switch all or nothing argument, where you claim that the founders were religious therefor our Government is religious too. And the part where you try to claim that someone is saying that they were not religious people in general. The fact is though that they did not make this a religious government so get over it.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I was not wrong about Moses. I clearly wrote that Moses was carrying tablets representing the 10 Commandants of the Old Testament. You mistakenly thought the one photo (without Moses in it) was the Commandments but I corrected you by showing proof that it was the Bill of Rights. The place that the Commandments show up is with Moses holding them. And history shows that the figures on the Supreme Court Building are there to represent examples of law, in a non religious way.

The Declaration of Independence pre-dates the US Constitution. US code in its Front Matter shows the secession of organic law (the Declaration being the first Constitution flowed by the Articles of Confederation) It is ignorant to believe that all of those Constitutions are in force and are law. The only Constitution that is the law of the land is the last one the US Constitution. Again what kind of nutty world would there be 4 constitutions?

As I said Moses was never a Christian symbol.

And stop that bait and switch all or nothing argument, where you claim that the founders were religious therefor our Government is religious too. And the part where you try to claim that someone is saying that they were not religious people in general. The fact is though that they did not make this a religious government so get over it.
Click to expand...


no you didn't correct me i corrected you, that is not the bill of rights., but the commandments.

it does not say there are 4 constitutions, 4 organic laws, ..the declaration of Independence applies principles to the laws of america, and in states.

who said Moses was a Christian....where are you getting that at?

some of the founding principles are of a religious nature, and some are not.... the Constitution of 1788, applies principles of the DOI .....the body of the Constitution creates federalism....that's all, it does!......the bill of rights applies religious principles from the declaration of independence.

i never said they created a religious government ..its secular, i said some ideas and laws, were based off of statements of Christianity, and they are.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


this states direcly the federal government is not Christian......it does not say the united states and its people are not
 
ernst barkmann said:
no you didn't correct me i corrected you, that is not the bill of rights., but the commandments.

it does not say there are 4 constitutions, 4 organic laws, ..the declaration of Independence applies principles to the laws of america, and in states.

who said Moses was a Christian....where are you getting that at?

some of the founding principles are of a religious nature, and some are not.... the Constitution of 1788, applies principles of the DOI .....the body of the Constitution creates federalism....that's all, it does!......the bill of rights applies religious principles from the declaration of independence.

i never said they created a religious government ..its secular, i said some ideas and laws, were based off of statements of Christianity, and they are.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


this states direcly the federal government is not Christian......it does not say the united states and its people are not
Click to expand...

I dont care who is religious as long as they do not force it on anyone. Here in New Mexico some folks thought that they would try and force their religion on other people, fortunately our Constitution won that battle again. it turns out that another religion didnt like it.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Nice debate guys, however I'm running behind in my day/evening and I have plans so -- "I'll be back" later this weekend to pick this up again because it is interesting.

Have good weekends yall... :2wave:
Click to expand...

Now you're all wrong and I'm right :2razz:
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I dont care who is religious as long as they do not force it on anyone. Here in New Mexico some folks thought that they would try and force their religion on other people, fortunately our Constitution won that battle again. it turns out that another religion didnt like it.
Click to expand...

The display of religious symbols is not forcing religion on anyone.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I dont care who is religious as long as they do not force it on anyone. Here in New Mexico some folks thought that they would try and force their religion on other people, fortunately our Constitution won that battle again. it turns out that another religion didnt like it.
Click to expand...

how is anyone forcing the religion on you.....by setting up a monument?..a Huck of stone........please, that's non sense.

people every day in america are having their rights violated by the federal government....right to property, association, right to commerce, be secure in their person.bear arms.......an a Huck of stone, or someone getting a discount for praying....these really need to be addressed?.....its no wonder this nation is going to fall.
 
Jerry said:
California has a Greek Goddess in the state seal, and no one cares.
Click to expand...

Right, but the Greek Goddess isn't holding Moses' tablets with the ten commandments on them.
 
ernst barkmann said:
how is anyone forcing the religion on you.....by setting up a monument?..a Huck of stone........please, that's non sense.

people every day in america are having their rights violated by the federal government....right to property, association, right to commerce, be secure in their person.bear arms.......an a Huck of stone, or someone getting a discount for praying....these really need to be addressed?.....its no wonder this nation is going to fall.
Click to expand...

Well ok then let them Communists put up a monument right smack in the middle of the Supreme Court building since a big piece of granite means nothing compared to your agenda.
 
Jerry said:
California has a Greek Goddess in the state seal, and no one cares.
Click to expand...

Never knew.
Strictly speaking she shouldn't be there.

Any other states have a religious artifact?

Over and above the US Seal itself, the motto and the currency, I mean.

Arizona: Ditat Deus
Arkansas: Goddess of Liberty
Colorado: Nil Sine Numine (iffy)
Florida: In God We Trust

hmm tired I looked up to Maryland alphabetically. It has been edifying.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
The display of religious symbols is not forcing religion on anyone.
Click to expand...

Non Jews (or non Christians) should not be forced to pay for the care of offensive religious monuments. Those wanting the Monument are free to put it on their own private property and care for it themselves. They could purchase a piece of property downtown Bloomfield (its a small nothing of a town) and put it there where they would have the Constitutional right to do so. Well unless there are any local ordinances against it, but having been to Bloomfield I seriously doubt that they would have such a thing.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Yet none of them are actually Christian nor represented as for religious reasons. So claiming a Christian influence isnt going to be found with any figures on government buildings. Divine Providence isnt at all viewed as just being a Christian thing. "May divine providence bless us with enough courage and enough determination to perceive within ourselves this holy German space." - Adolf Hitler, Speech, March 24, 1933
Click to expand...

While I agree with you, that's not a good example because Hitler was a Christian and believed that God told him to exterminate the Jews. He was very much talking about Christianity when he made that statement.
 
Jerry said:
California has a Greek Goddess in the state seal, and no one cares.
Click to expand...

Because it's not an active religion. Once Christianity goes away into the dustbin of history, nobody will care about that either.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The display of religious symbols is not forcing religion on anyone.
Click to expand...
Then you would be fine with your local courthouse displaying a six foot tall crescent and star, the symbol of Islam, on the courthouse lawn?

300px-Star_and_Crescent.svg.png


The display of a religious symbol in government-owned spaces does (in many but not all) situations indicate an endorsement of religion by the state. Hence the problem.
 
Visbek said:
Then you would be fine with your local courthouse displaying a six foot tall crescent and star, the symbol of Islam, on the courthouse lawn?

300px-Star_and_Crescent.svg.png


The display of a religious symbol in government-owned spaces does (in many but not all) situations indicate an endorsement of religion by the state. Hence the problem.
Click to expand...

I'd be OK with it as long is it included the rest:

th
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom