• 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

Far from wrapping up the distinction in a neat rule....
I did not intend to suggest that the rule was "neat" or "easy." The borders for this kind of thing are undoubtedly fuzzy, which is one reason why they keep cropping up in the courts. But that is the general principle: If it seems to be establishing a state religion rather than displaying a historical element, it's problematic. Thus, some but not all 10 Commandment displays do in fact get removed from public spaces.


The Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is as unclear and difficult as it gets.
What else is new? We could say the same for freedom of expression, for segregation, obscenity ("I know it when I see it"), for all sorts of issues. The complexity in implementation, however, does not prove that the underlying principles are excessively complicated.


And I wonder how you would fit Capitol Square Review Board into your rule about the Establishment Clause question turning on "part of a larger display," "primarily for historical ends," etc. The Court held that crosses the KKK was allowed to erect on public land across from the Ohio state capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause, and yet they were neither part of a larger display nor displayed primarily for historical purposes. Tell us how that squares with McCreary County.
It's in the nature of how that public area had been used as a "public forum" for years, and the cross was planted right next to a menorah set up by another group of citizens. Sorry, I forgot to mention that particular exception.

At any rate, like I said: It's all about the context. In that case, the context of that space was sufficient to make it clear that the cross was not set up by the state as an attempt to command citizens to follow a religion.


Ah, what wit! Adultery has traditionally been a crime in most states....
You're missing the point. Atheists are not "killjoys" because they don't want a state-sanctioned religion shoved down their throats. Nor do such ad hominems help your cause.


My concern is the right of Americans to celebrate and promote traditional American culture and values in the face of harassment by America-loathing atheists who ironically call themselves "liberal."
Then this case should give you absolutely no cause for concern.

If you want to promote "traditional values" (whatever the hell that means), no one is stopping you. Just do it on private property, or in a space that is set up as a public forum. Problem solved.


What they really are is today Puritans--self-righteous, close-minded prigs who want to boss around everyone they think is less morally enlightened than they are.
Please, spare us the ad hominem attacks.


Right idea, wrong freedom. It's not the freedom of speech that overly strict interpretations of the Establishment Clause threatens, but the right to free exercise of religion.
Uh, no. In this case, and in many other cases, it's freedom of expression. Just look at... Capital Square. :D


If a fire breaks out in the kitchen at First Baptist as the ladies in the flock are busily preparing for the church bake sale, shouldn't the city fire department just let it burn? After all a municipal government is only a creature of the state where it's located. And if the Establishment Clause means strict separation of church and state, we can't have the state government helping a church, can we?
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "separation of church and state" does not mean "the state shall provide no services whatsoever to any religious entity." Absolutely nothing in my argument lends itself to such wild misinterpretations.
 
He executed, persecuted and targeted Christian clergy because the Church doctrine wasn't compatible with Nazi ideology.

Um, the Catholic Church vehemently supported Hitler until it became painfully obvious that he was out of his mind and going to lose. After the war, they smuggled Nazi war criminals out of Germany under Catholic Red Cross visas. The churches in Germany celebrated Hitler's birthday every year. Yeah, these people look pretty persecuted, don't they?

priests-salute.jpg
 
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.

Ahhh the ill-informed martyr, there is no censorship, no suppression- it is a strong and ancient tradition of render unto Caesar and all that. Since the days of Kings and strong Church holdings there has been a striving to keep Church and State apart... course back then the Church fought to keep the king's fingers out of their coffers and off their vast Church land holdings.

Many neo-martyrs forget history- the centuries of struggle the Church and State had... from popes wanting to control the kings to kings wanting to seize church profit and lands to pursue grandiose plans. No less than Martin Luther held there were two realms, as did James Madison.

Modern Martyrs try a variety of dodges to push their religion to the fore- from calling the basic tenants of Christianity a 'cultural' thing TW Shannon and Oklahoma's 10 commandments monuments to making a big show of 'private donations' to put religious monuments on public lands. (now let a 'heathen' bunch want to do the same thing and suddenly there is a problem)

The Church is safe, thanks to the 1st A. What it isn't of some's liking is the efforts of most people, even self proclaimed Christians, to keep the Government open to all without regard to Faith. Neo-martyrs can bemoan all they want, they can pretend the separation is a new deal in American history- but fantasy doesn't do well in the real world.... :peace
 
Um, the Catholic Church vehemently supported Hitler until it became painfully obvious that he was out of his mind and going to lose. After the war, they smuggled Nazi war criminals out of Germany under Catholic Red Cross visas. The churches in Germany celebrated Hitler's birthday every year. Yeah, these people look pretty persecuted, don't they?

View attachment 67171232

Yes, you have some personal hang ups with Christians for some reason.

Your problem, not mine.

Initially all Germans got behind Hitler and churches too.

Thats why I asked for dates....... you failed to supply them.

Hitler didn't " lose his mind. He appealed to anyone and everyone just like a good Politician would.

Once he gained power revealed his true nature and that ofcourse led to Religious and cultural persecution.

Hitler designed some of the NAZI symbolism that was paraded around throughout the 30s and 40s including the Swastika.

If he was such a believer why didn't he include Christian symbolism ?
 
If he was such a believer why didn't he include Christian symbolism ?

What, you mean like these?

buckle.jpgChaplinvisor.jpgCrossSwastika1.jpgDeutscheChristenBadge.jpgMothersCross.jpg

There are plenty of other examples. And don't make me pull out all of the Nazi symbolism found in German churches of the day either, I can do that.

You have no clue what you're talking about.
 
Good! Religion sholuld stay in churches.
 
What, you mean like these?

View attachment 67171247View attachment 67171248View attachment 67171249View attachment 67171250View attachment 67171251

There are plenty of other examples. And don't make me pull out all of the Nazi symbolism found in German churches of the day either, I can do that.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Fenton needs to open his eyes.
Maybe if HE did 5 minute google searches instead of sticking to sites like conservapedia, he might learn something.

It is hard to fight indoctrination, Fenton, but you will find it is well worth the effort.
Hitler was a catholic christian.
He said it in his own words.
His armies all fought under the banner of god. Gott Mit Uns. As Cephus demonstrated quite clearly so even a 6 year old can understand, Nazi and christian symbolism were intertwined.

There is no way you can hide from that fact unless you are going to be willfully ignorant which is of course your choice. A sad choice to be sure but still a choice.
 
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.

I agree with this, but... honestly, I'd rather not have stuff like that displayed on public property. I'd rather my government be 100% neutral. Want to display something? Hire a local photographer and get some shots of the local area.
 
Fenton needs to open his eyes.
Maybe if HE did 5 minute google searches instead of sticking to sites like conservapedia, he might learn something.

It is hard to fight indoctrination, Fenton, but you will find it is well worth the effort.
Hitler was a catholic christian.
He said it in his own words.
His armies all fought under the banner of god. Gott Mit Uns. As Cephus demonstrated quite clearly so even a 6 year old can understand, Nazi and christian symbolism were intertwined.

There is no way you can hide from that fact unless you are going to be willfully ignorant which is of course your choice. A sad choice to be sure but still a choice.

And it's not just that the Nazis used Christian symbolism, the German Christians used Nazi symbolism. It wasn't just in Germany though, the whole of the Catholic Church was on Hitler's side, the Pope was openly friendly to Hitler and his regime. It doesn't matter what Christians, clueless and gullible, want to believe, we've got the proof.

From the Martin Luther Memorial Church, built in 1935. Hitler greatly admired Martin Luther and mentioned him in Mein Kampf as a great reformer.

MLMC5.jpg

This is the baptismal font, picturing Hitler holding a Nazi stormtrooper hat.

MLMC6.jpg

This is part of a stone relief, featuring the crown of thorns and a Nazi stormtrooper.

MLMC7.jpg

A wooden frieze on the pulpit picturing Jesus standing next to a Nazi soldier, surrounded by Aryan women and children.

It's not that hard to understand. Hitler said he was a Christian, all of the rest of the Nazis said he was a Christian, the Catholic church said he was a Christian he described how his Christian beliefs caused the Holocaust, how, then, is he magically not a Christian? Because Christians are desperately trying to distance themselves from him? Deal with reality!
 
I agree with this, but... honestly, I'd rather not have stuff like that displayed on public property. I'd rather my government be 100% neutral. Want to display something? Hire a local photographer and get some shots of the local area.

since i am for the constitution, and the federal government was suppose to be restricted from violating rights via the bill of rights, and states were suppose to be involved in the life's liberty and property of the people, then it would be contingent on state constitutional law, not federal.

but the Constitution is very clear, "congress shall make no law".....
 
And it's not just that the Nazis used Christian symbolism, the German Christians used Nazi symbolism. It wasn't just in Germany though, the whole of the Catholic Church was on Hitler's side, the Pope was openly friendly to Hitler and his regime. It doesn't matter what Christians, clueless and gullible, want to believe, we've got the proof.

From the Martin Luther Memorial Church, built in 1935. Hitler greatly admired Martin Luther and mentioned him in Mein Kampf as a great reformer.

View attachment 67171258

This is the baptismal font, picturing Hitler holding a Nazi stormtrooper hat.

View attachment 67171259

This is part of a stone relief, featuring the crown of thorns and a Nazi stormtrooper.

View attachment 67171260

A wooden frieze on the pulpit picturing Jesus standing next to a Nazi soldier, surrounded by Aryan women and children.

It's not that hard to understand. Hitler said he was a Christian, all of the rest of the Nazis said he was a Christian, the Catholic church said he was a Christian he described how his Christian beliefs caused the Holocaust, how, then, is he magically not a Christian? Because Christians are desperately trying to distance themselves from him? Deal with reality!

you are not trying to associate Nazis TO Christianity..are you?.......and that is again, that Christianity is tied to being national socialist.

or is it you mean the Nazis used Christianity for their purposes.
 
since i am for the constitution, and the federal government was suppose to be restricted from violating rights via the bill of rights, and states were suppose to be involved in the life's liberty and property of the people, then it would be contingent on state constitutional law, not federal.

but the Constitution is very clear, "congress shall make no law".....
Whoa there. Sometimes you're a little too myopic. I didn't say anything about Congress making a law.
 
Whoa there. Sometimes you're a little too myopic. I didn't say anything about Congress making a law.

i did not say you did..:)

i wanted to convey, i am a firm believer in federalism.....i believe in that states should sovereign and independent states from one another, and the federal government [congress] out of matters of the people.
 
i did not say you did..:)

i wanted to convey, i am a firm believer in federalism.....i believe in that states should sovereign and independent states from one another, and the federal government [congress] out of matters of the people.
Ok, got'cha. I was just saying that I would prefer local and/or state government choose to not display such things even if they are technically allowed to.
 
you are not trying to associate Nazis TO Christianity..are you?.......and that is again, that Christianity is tied to being national socialist.

or is it you mean the Nazis used Christianity for their purposes.

No, it's painfully clear that you're desperately trying to find some way around the reality that Christianity and Nazism were linked. You just don't want to admit it.
 
No, it's painfully clear that you're desperately trying to find some way around the reality that Christianity and Nazism were linked. You just don't want to admit it.

did not say that...people through out history have used Christianity for their own means...even today.

but that is no way, makes Christianity as whole, in collusion with the Nazi's
 
you are not trying to associate Nazis TO Christianity..are you?.......and that is again, that Christianity is tied to being national socialist.

or is it you mean the Nazis used Christianity for their purposes.

The nazi's used just about every doctrine to get their followers. They were close to communist to the workers (jobs for everyone, food for everyone), they were ultra nationalist to appease the old order and their german empire idiocy, they were all anti-jewish to appease both the church and the anti-semites, they were very protestant and pure when it suited their needs.

But most of all they were populist fascist, power was all he cared about and dominance over every aspect of life inside Germany and the countries they invaded for the good of Hitler himself.

But that is all getting way off the path in this issue.

Religion is all and fine and even governments being busy at promoting "good morals" is not a problem. But all this judge says is that putting this monument on the doorstep of city hall is going to possibly cause problems with non-religious or differently religious people and that the city should not have done it. If the city would have put this monument on government land in front of a church it would not be a problem as long as no government money was involved in making and placing that monument there.

Some people dislike being confronted with government de-facto promoting the Christian religion by way of the ten commandments. And this local government did and I think the city should have known better.
 
The nazi's used just about every doctrine to get their followers. They were close to communist to the workers (jobs for everyone, food for everyone), they were ultra nationalist to appease the old order and their german empire idiocy, they were all anti-jewish to appease both the church and the anti-semites, they were very protestant and pure when it suited their needs.

But most of all they were populist fascist, power was all he cared about and dominance over every aspect of life inside Germany and the countries they invaded for the good of Hitler himself.

But that is all getting way off the path in this issue.

Religion is all and fine and even governments being busy at promoting "good morals" is not a problem. But all this judge says is that putting this monument on the doorstep of city hall is going to possibly cause problems with non-religious or differently religious people and that the city should not have done it. If the city would have put this monument on government land in front of a church it would not be a problem as long as no government money was involved in making and placing that monument there.

Some people dislike being confronted with government de-facto promoting the Christian religion by way of the ten commandments. And this local government did and I think the city should have known better.

yes many have used Christianity for their own ends.

i myself as i said, am a firm believer in federalism, and state constitutional law. .....on matters like this........not federal

as the father of the Constitution states,...state powers concern the life's liberty and property of the people.
 
Are the Ten Commandments really Christian?

It seems to me they're more Jewish.
 
Back
Top Bottom