• 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!

Kentucky counties fined $400,000 for posting Ten Commandments

Is this decision proper?

  • Yes - The government should not be promoting religion.

    Votes: 7 53.8%
  • No - It violates the free speech rights of those who wish to have the 10 Commandments posted there.

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • Other. Please explain.

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Not sure / Don't know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    13

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In a legal battle that has spanned a decade, 2 counties in Kentucky have been ordered to pay the ACLU a total of $400,000.00. They won't be paying for a while because parts of the case are still being appealed.

So is this right? On one hand, citizens should not have religion shoved down their throats by ANY government, as that represents a violation of the Separation clause. On the other hand, nobody seems to be forcing religion upon people at the courthouses in question, but are merely posting where our law comes from. In that case, why not post the writings of Hammurabi, whose "Code of Laws" is the first, and predates even the laws of Moses?

Is posting the 10 Commandments in a courthouse an act of promoting one religion over another, or is it an act of free speech? You decide.

My answer is that, yes, it does promote a religion, and therefore, should not be posted in any government building. However, I do not see a problem with the 10 Commandments being posted in a park or other "public" place not designated as "doing the government's business".

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
In a legal battle that has spanned a decade, 2 counties in Kentucky have been ordered to pay the ACLU a total of $400,000.00. They won't be paying for a while because parts of the case are still being appealed.

So is this right? On one hand, citizens should not have religion shoved down their throats by ANY government, as that represents a violation of the Separation clause. On the other hand, nobody seems to be forcing religion upon people at the courthouses in question, but are merely posting where our law comes from. In that case, why not post the writings of Hammurabi, whose "Code of Laws" is the first, and predates even the laws of Moses?

Is posting the 10 Commandments in a courthouse an act of promoting one religion over another, or is it an act of free speech? You decide.

My answer is that, yes, it does promote a religion, and therefore, should not be posted in any government building. However, I do not see a problem with the 10 Commandments being posted in a park or other "public" place not designated as "doing the government's business".

Article is here.

I don't see where the ACLU should be collecting the first red cent for trying to remove part of the American tradition from public eyes.
 
I don't see where the ACLU should be collecting the first red cent for trying to remove part of the American tradition from public eyes.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the 10 Commandments should be allowed to stay in those courthouses?
 
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the 10 Commandments should be allowed to stay in those courthouses?

Yes. If we can have pagan symbols such as the blind lady justice and the scales of balance in the courthouse, I see no issue with writings that became the foundation for Western morality in the courthouse.

It's just a copy of a document. It's not like anyone is being forced to read it, bow down before it, or even acknowledge it with anymore attention than they do the seal that sits behind the judge. It's a symbol...and banning symbols beloved by some citizens because other citizens can't manage to not obsess over them when they see them is limiting the free expression of all citizens in the end.
 
Yes. If we can have pagan symbols such as the blind lady justice and the scales of balance in the courthouse, I see no issue with writings that became the foundation for Western morality in the courthouse.

It's just a copy of a document. It's not like anyone is being forced to read it, bow down before it, or even acknowledge it with anymore attention than they do the seal that sits behind the judge. It's a symbol...and banning symbols beloved by some citizens because other citizens can't manage to not obsess over them when they see them is limiting the free expression of all citizens in the end.

If we can have the 10 Commandments, then why shouldn't the courts then be forced to put in other writings, such as Hammurabi's Code, Islamic Writings, or even writings from atheists?
 
In a legal battle that has spanned a decade, 2 counties in Kentucky have been ordered to pay the ACLU a total of $400,000.00. They won't be paying for a while because parts of the case are still being appealed.

So is this right? On one hand, citizens should not have religion shoved down their throats by ANY government, as that represents a violation of the Separation clause. On the other hand, nobody seems to be forcing religion upon people at the courthouses in question, but are merely posting where our law comes from. In that case, why not post the writings of Hammurabi, whose "Code of Laws" is the first, and predates even the laws of Moses?

Is posting the 10 Commandments in a courthouse an act of promoting one religion over another, or is it an act of free speech? You decide.

My answer is that, yes, it does promote a religion, and therefore, should not be posted in any government building. However, I do not see a problem with the 10 Commandments being posted in a park or other "public" place not designated as "doing the government's business".

Article is here.

What exactly do you mean where our laws 'come from'? The only two commandments that are even close to ours laws are not killing and not stealing. And these were laws in societies as far back as the Egyptians. LONG before Christianity or even Judaism showed up. So which of our laws come from the 10 commandments? If anything the 10 commandments stand in opposition to our constitution :

1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol.

In opposition to the 1st amendment.

2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

In opposition to the 1st amendment.

3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

In opposition to the 1st amendment.

4. You shall not murder*

Law

5. Honor your father and mother

Ummmmm not really a law?

6. You shall not commit adultery.

Pretty legal.

7. You shall not steal.

Law.

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Not a law.

9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

Not a law.

10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

Not a law.

------------------

Just sayin'. Claiming that our laws come from the 10 commandments is a pretty long stretch considering 8/10 are not laws within out legal system and the very first and most important of all 10 is done away by our 1st amendment.
 
If we can have the 10 Commandments, then why shouldn't the courts then be forced to put in other writings, such as Hammurabi's Code, Islamic Writings, or even writings from atheists?

I see no reason why they can't or shouldn't. If they are commissioning a work or monument to go in the courthouse, everyone should be given equal access to present a nomination for it. If there is room in the courthouse and some civic or community group wants to donate a monument to go there, I see no reason why it should be limited to any one particular faith in keeping with the decor and intent of the monument.

What I see in these cases is some fundy atheist groups getting their panties in a wad because they don't want to be faced with the reality that there are Christians in this society.
 
I see no problem with posting the Ten Commandments anywhere, as long as all other beliefs are allowed to be displayed as well.

As far as our legal system being based on the teachings of The Bible (not the Ten Commandments), I do not believe that. Just like all other legal systems, our system is based on common human desire. It just so happens The Bible is based on the same thing.
 
What exactly do you mean where our laws 'come from'? The only two commandments that are even close to ours laws are not killing and not stealing. And these were laws in societies as far back as the Egyptians. LONG before Christianity or even Judaism showed up. So which of our laws come from the 10 commandments? If anything the 10 commandments stand in opposition to our constitution :

1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol.

In opposition to the 1st amendment.

2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

In opposition to the 1st amendment.

3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

In opposition to the 1st amendment.

4. You shall not murder*

Law

5. Honor your father and mother

Ummmmm not really a law?

6. You shall not commit adultery.

Pretty legal.

7. You shall not steal.

Law.

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Not a law.

9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

Not a law.

10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

Not a law.

------------------

Just sayin'. Claiming that our laws come from the 10 commandments is a pretty long stretch considering 8/10 are not laws within out legal system and the very first and most important of all 10 is done away by our 1st amendment.

None of that detracts from the fact that historically, the 10 Commandments has been a centerpiece of legal and moral philosophy.
 
The ten commandments take precedence over our constitution. It is a more important document. It doesn't promote any particular religion. It is God who gave us our inalienable rights, not our constitution.
 
In a legal battle that has spanned a decade, 2 counties in Kentucky have been ordered to pay the ACLU a total of $400,000.00. They won't be paying for a while because parts of the case are still being appealed.

So is this right? On one hand, citizens should not have religion shoved down their throats by ANY government, as that represents a violation of the Separation clause. On the other hand, nobody seems to be forcing religion upon people at the courthouses in question, but are merely posting where our law comes from. In that case, why not post the writings of Hammurabi, whose "Code of Laws" is the first, and predates even the laws of Moses?

Is posting the 10 Commandments in a courthouse an act of promoting one religion over another, or is it an act of free speech? You decide.

My answer is that, yes, it does promote a religion, and therefore, should not be posted in any government building. However, I do not see a problem with the 10 Commandments being posted in a park or other "public" place not designated as "doing the government's business".

Article is here.

This has nothing to do with religion or speech. Nothing at all.

US district judge Jennifer B Coffman ordered Pulaski and McCreary counties to pay $393,798 in attorneys' fees and $8,133 in expenses to the ACLU of Kentucky and citizens.

No one is being compensated for a damage here.
There is no victim.

Attorneys are being paid for bringing a lawsuit, nothing more.
 
The ten commandments take precedence over our constitution. It is a more important document. It doesn't promote any particular religion. It is God who gave us our inalienable rights, not our constitution.

Yeah well God didn't provide a list of those rights along with a mechanism for taxation that raises and maintains and army to defend us from foreign and domestic threats to those rights.
 
None of that detracts from the fact that historically, the 10 Commandments has been a centerpiece of legal and moral philosophy.

So has the Code of Hammurabi, but they are not considered by those who want to put up the 10 Commandments. And there is a minority that disagrees that the 10 commandments have more "morality" than an atheist who does not believe in God, but has his own morality that dictates that you do not kill, steal, or commit other crimes. In forcing the 10 commandments upon him, while not allowing another document representing his own view to be posted, is exactly what our forefathers feared when they spoke of the "tyranny of the majority".
 
None of that detracts from the fact that historically, the 10 Commandments has been a centerpiece of legal and moral philosophy.

Too bad we live in the 21st century. Not 300 years ago where people were ultra religious and little educated.
 
Yeah well God didn't provide a list of those rights along with a mechanism for taxation that raises and maintains and army to defend us from foreign and domestic threats to those rights.

I can just picture you wearing glasses and saying that....
 
So has the Code of Hammurabi, but they are not considered by those who want to put up the 10 Commandments. And there is a minority that disagrees that the 10 commandments have more "morality" than an atheist who does not believe in God, but has his own morality that dictates that you do not kill, steal, or commit other crimes. In forcing the 10 commandments upon him, while not allowing another document representing his own view to be posted, is exactly what our forefathers feared when they spoke of the "tyranny of the majority".

So then let that minority buy a bronze code of Hamurabai and donate it to the courthouse for display. Problem solved.
 
1) The case was decided years ago, this is simply attorneys fees and costs. The headline is very misleading.

2) The case was, IMO, rightly decided. The actions of the county were blatantly designed to favor a particular religion, and this display was devoid of any of the contextual elements that would have mitigated its religious nature.
 
So then let that minority buy a bronze code of Hamurabai and donate it to the courthouse for display. Problem solved.

Not solved if the courthouse refuses to display it.
 
The ten commandments take precedence over our constitution. It is a more important document. It doesn't promote any particular religion. It is God who gave us our inalienable rights, not our constitution.

Show me where in the Constitution it says "thou shall have no other gods before me", and as soon as you cannot find that passage, then show me where in the Constitution where it says that everyone must obey that.

In America, the Constitution takes precedence over the 10 Commandments. In Iran, the mullahs run the nation. In America, they don't.
 
Last edited:
The ten commandments take precedence over our constitution. It is a more important document. It doesn't promote any particular religion. It is God who gave us our inalienable rights, not our constitution.

No. Just.....no.

That's where a lawsuit becomes reasonable.

The Court just so happened to decide that exact issue three weeks ago.
 
So then let that minority buy a bronze code of Hamurabai and donate it to the courthouse for display. Problem solved.

I believe in this case, the locals weren't allowing that.

The ten commandments take precedence over our constitution. It is a more important document. It doesn't promote any particular religion. It is God who gave us our inalienable rights, not our constitution.

How can you say the 10 commandments don't promote any particular religion when the commands include things like "you shall have no other god before me" and "remember the sabbath day and keep it holy" (not something a lot of Hindus exactly do, for instance)
 
Back
Top Bottom