Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

Top Cat said:

Don't care. The fact is religion should never be a part of public property. Period.

Click to expand...

Says who? you? some tyrannical judge/justice that is clearly ignorant to the Bill of Rights or just interprets the document via their own political philosophies??

These judges, lawyers and justices need to keep their damn personal politics out of the Bill of Rights...

The First Amendment denies theocracy - not religion. If this nation was founded on atheism the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would have just outright banned religion if that was their intent...

It's very simple - our government cannot be theocratic or a theocracy and don't confuse that with the display of religious symbolism.... When our government starts throwing you or anyone in prison for your religious beliefs I will be the first one to get up and fight against that, however that has NEVER happened and NEVER will happen.

In order to understand and interpret our Constitution and Bill of Rights you need to put yourself in the framers of the document(s) shoes and see what they saw happening in their time across the pond in Europe - they saw theocratic persecution, and all the framers (our founding fathers) wanted was freedom from persecution for holding religious views or any ideas..... That is something these dummy justices and judges and some politicians and activists don't understand.

Before one can even begin to even interpret our founding documents they need to understand history first and the geo-politics of the time that led to those founding documents.

Once you fully understand the geo-politics of that time period our founding documents and our founding fathers intentions become quite clear....

I would like to take a moment to remind everyone that a government spends money by enacting legislation. Spending money in support of a religious monument, even for something as simple as upkeep, is passing a law that favors religion. It may be a small favor, but it is a favor. Such a display ought to be on private property, not public. It necessarily creates an entangling of government and religion.

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...

They're really not. Greek and Roman law, which were not particularly influenced by Hebrew philosophy, are the oldest foundation of our modern notions of law. The ten commandments are a footnote at best. The "foundational legal statements" by humans (please remember to include the women) are Hammurabi's Code, the Magna Carta, the US constitution... The ten commandments really had very little to do with it. They didn't inspire the idea of law. They didn't inspire the methodology of law. They didn't inspire the mindset by which we make law. And most of them aren't law in this country. Half are unconstitutional. The ten commandments have very little to do with any of our modern notions of law and had very little to do with the process that got us here.

Top Cat said:

Anything denoting religion on public property should not be allowed.

Click to expand...

Even I think that complaining about the name of a street is taking it a bit too far.

Mr.Nick said:

Says who? you? some tyrannical judge/justice that is clearly ignorant to the Bill of Rights or just interprets the document via their own political philosophies??

Click to expand...

It's basic fairness and respect for American citizens of different creeds. All or none.

Mr.Nick said:

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???

Click to expand...

Only three of the ten have anything to do with modern law.

And atheist religion? There have already been lengthy threads about that one. Careful, or you're likely to get yet another one started.

wolfsgirl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.....

Our First Amendment doesn't say; "freedom for Christianity" it states "freedom of religion."

The thing is that the United States is mostly Christians and Muslims view idols or religious symbolism as a form of blasphemy, obviously Jews have their symbolism such as the 6-point star (or even the Ten Commandments), and Buddhists, they have Buddha.....

It's no ones fault that Christianity happens to be the majority religion in the United States...

There are plenty of religions, and any one of them are more than welcome to display their faith...

Dittohead not! said:

Only three of the ten have anything to do with modern law.

And atheist religion? There have already been lengthy threads about that one. Careful, or you're likely to get yet another one started.

Click to expand...

Atheism is a religion - they have "churches" and adhere to a common idea "there is no God"... They're either a religion or cult.. I know they've attempted to apply for "religious status" with the government so...

What is the difference believing that there is no God and believing there is one? In my philosophy it's the same concept.

I don't personally know how many members a "group" needs to qualify as a "religion" but I think atheists have enough to meet some sort of requirement or criteria in my opinion.

And like I said - the lack of belief is the same as belief - we both believe in something and IMO, "believe" is what defines a religion.

Obviously this is all really philosophical, and definitely subjective so we can leave it at that.

Dittohead not! said:

No, the wall of separation was a later idea.

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

Click to expand...

Which was never codified into law.

Dittohead not! said:

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...

No. and Why wouldn't it be? There are many reasons that it might be on a government building. Not all of them having to do with religion.

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 agree. Congress has passed no law whatsoever. If anything making someone take down the ten commandants is violating the free exercise clause. The judge is reading from from religion into the first amendment and it seems judges are doing their darn best to make the United States a religious free zone. But lawyerese will always prevail over plain English. Making someone take the monument down is also violating their free speech, but only in lawyerese is the term shall not changed to mean shall and vice versa.

Kal'Stang said:

Which was never codified into law.



No. and Why wouldn't it be? There are many reasons that it might be on a government building. Not all of them having to do with religion.

Click to expand...

What non religious reason could there be.. let's see.. perhaps the prohibition of adultery is there to remind the pols.. no, that can't be it. Maybe it's the injunction against working on the Sabbath... No, can't be that. It says they're supposed to work six days of the week. Could be the part about no idols, but no, their idol is the almighty dollar.

Nope. Can't think of a single reason other than religion.

brothern said:

It's basic fairness and respect for American citizens of different creeds. All or none.

Click to expand...

Respect?

Since when did we all turn into vampires?

I don't even understand how any religious symbol could offend an atheist - it makes no sense to me. If you don't believe in God then therefore the symbol should be meaningless to the atheist.

If anything I see this as a total attack on religion and especially the Bill of Rights...

What makes this debate even more ironic is that (in my opinion) most atheists are progressive, hence they're the first people to preach tolerance..... Well they can't tolerate religious symbols that have no meaning to them?

Yeah so much for the whole "tolerance" idea.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

Mr.Nick said:

Absolutely.....

Our First Amendment doesn't say; "freedom for Christianity" it states "freedom of religion."

The thing is that the United States is mostly Christians and Muslims view idols or religious symbolism as a form of blasphemy, obviously Jews have their symbolism such as the 6-point star (or even the Ten Commandments), and Buddhists, they have Buddha.....

It's no ones fault that Christianity happens to be the majority religion in the United States...

There are plenty of religions, and any one of them are more than welcome to display their faith...

Click to expand...

You might want to tell Oklahoma that. They are trying to ban the Satanist monument, and the Hindu monument while they allow the big 10.

Dittohead not! said:

What non religious reason could there be.. let's see.. perhaps the prohibition of adultery is there to remind the pols.. no, that can't be it. Maybe it's the injunction against working on the Sabbath... No, can't be that. It says they're supposed to work six days of the week. Could be the part about no idols, but no, their idol is the almighty dollar.

Nope. Can't think of a single reason other than religion.

Click to expand...

Most state laws are/were completely based on the Ten Commandments....

Funny part is the further you go south and the smaller communities you get into they're totally devout to the Ten Commandments (Bible Belt)...

Who really cares tho? if that is how those people feel comfortable living then let them live that way...

I don't know why so many people are obsessed with how others live or what they want to believe..... It's almost like it pisses someone off that another individual believes in God..... My philosophy is extremely simple - just as long as you're not affecting me I could care less what you do..... I find it extremely unbelievable that anyone would be offended by a crucifix or the Ten Commandments - that is not something logically to be offended by unless one is the type that goes out of their way to be offended.

I've become offended that this is even a debate or such a big deal..... It makes no sense to me.

Most things or public displays I don't agree with generally make me laugh - they don't offend me or even anger me.. The thought in my mind is basically "ok if you want to buy that go for it" then I just laugh... And believe me being from northern Illinois (Chicago metro area) I see a lot of weird stuff....

wolfsgirl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Whether allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed as it was in this case violates the Establishment Clause or some other part of the First Amendment does not depend on what you personally think. And the Supreme Court does not seem to agree with your assertion that it's permissible only if "any other religion" also gets to put its monument up on the same grounds.

You might want to look at Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, a 2009 Supreme Court decision. Members of the Summum religion demanded that the city let it place a monument inscribed with the "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" in a city park where other donated monuments had been erected. The Court held that although the area was a "traditional public forum for speeches and other transitory acts, the display of a permanent monument in a public park is not a form of expression to which forum analysis applies."

The placement of a permanent monument in a public park was not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause, the Court explained, because it was a form of government speech. As long as the city's acceptance of a monument could not be seen as an endorsement of religion, it was free to accept or reject private monuments.

Mr.Nick said:

Atheism is a religion - they have "churches" and adhere to a common idea "there is no God"... They're either a religion or cult.. I know they've attempted to apply for "religious status" with the government so...

What is the difference believing that there is no God and believing there is one? In my philosophy it's the same concept.

I don't personally know how many members a "group" needs to qualify as a "religion" but I think atheists have enough to meet some sort of requirement or criteria in my opinion.

And like I said - the lack of belief is the same as belief - we both believe in something and IMO, "believe" is what defines a religion.

Obviously this is all really philosophical, and definitely subjective so we can leave it at that.

Click to expand...

By your (thin) logic, a bowling league is a religion.

wolfsgirl said:

You might want to tell Oklahoma that. They are trying to ban the Satanist monument, and the Hindu monument while they allow the big 10.

Click to expand...

Man, there are always crazies that want to ban something. I'm not one of them BTW, as a matter of fact I think "bans" are evil....

Hell, there are people out there that want to ban some of the silliest stuff..... They can try but they won't get away with it unless they get enough minions to brainwash millions and create a hysteria - which is what a lot of these "groups" attempt to do in the first place...

IMO, I don't know why people are obsessed with banning things or are so worried about what others think (at least with the minor issues that basically affect no one)...

Let them try...... Just like that clown Bloomberg tried to ban soda or these clowns in Chicago want to ban guns or even plastic bags.... They're a bunch of crazy people who are authoritarian in nature.

I don't get this whole fanaticism regarding the 10 commandments in the first place.

They're not legal epiphanies and for the most part are absolutely archaic and not attributable to a modern legal system.

Unrepresented said:

By your (thin) logic, a bowling league is a religion.

Click to expand...

No, because a bowling league has no fundamental ideology or even belief...

Besides, as a bowler myself we have a league and then we have teams so......

Maybe we can call it a cult because I know some pretty serious bowlers that are almost religious about the sport lol.

Of course these are loose ideas that are highly subjective in nature with really no clear-cut definition other than subjectivism.

Jetboogieman said:

I don't get this whole fanaticism regarding the 10 commandments in the first place.

They're not legal epiphanies and for the most part are absolutely archaic and not attributable to a modern legal system.

Click to expand...

Sorry you're completely wrong there...

Go down the Ten Commandments and tell me which ones you a) won't get arrested for or b) which ones previously are NOT laws or c) which ones society as a whole finds acceptable or haven't tried to outright ban?

I'm not trying to push religion at all - I'm just being real and honest here.

Mr.Nick said:

No, because a bowling league has no fundamental ideology or even belief...

Besides, as a bowler myself we have a league and then we have teams so......

Maybe we can call it a cult because I know some pretty serious bowlers that are almost religious about the sport lol.

Of course these are loose ideas that are highly subjective in nature with really no clear-cut definition other than subjectivism.

Click to expand...

"Standing pins are bad. May they all fall before my heavy spherical object."

Mr.Nick said:

What makes this debate even more ironic is that (in my opinion) most atheists are progressive, hence they're the first people to preach tolerance..... Well they can't tolerate religious symbols that have no meaning to them?

Yeah so much for the whole "tolerance" idea.

Click to expand...

It's well worth pointing out, in turn, that most “progressives” are very “tolerant” of things with which they agree. Of things with which they do not agree, not so much.

Of course, this wrong-wing interpretation of “tolerance” misses the entire point of tolerance.

Mr.Nick said:

Sorry you're completely wrong there...

Go down the Ten Commandments and tell me which ones you a) won't get arrested for or b) which ones previously are NOT laws or c) which ones society as a whole finds acceptable or haven't tried to outright ban?

I'm not trying to push religion at all - I'm just being real and honest here.

Click to expand...

Once again, here they are:

1. You shall have no other Gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourselves an idol
3. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy
5. Honor your father and your mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not give false testimony
10. You shall not covet

1. outlawed by the First Amendment.
2. won't get you in trouble in Modern America.
3. won't get you in trouble in Modern America.
4. Most big stores are open on Saturday and Sunday both. No sabbaths there.
5. won't get you in trouble in Modern America.
6. Bingo! There's one!
7. Won't get you in trouble with the law, but could have some negative consequences.
8. Bingo! Yet another!
9. And there's the third
10. Downright encouraged in a capitalist system.

There you go. The Ten Commandments as a basis for modern law.

fedup said:

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.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Props for laying out the truth.

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

Establishment of religion does not mean writing of a law saying that the 10 commandments is the official commandments of the city of Elsewhere...

By the city's OK-ing the monument to be placed in the public square is the city giving tacit acceptance and favor to the monument...ergo the 10 commandments...ergo religion.

Unrepresented said:

"Standing pins are bad. May they all fall before my heavy spherical object."

Click to expand...

That is a goal not a religion...

Hell, I'm a hockey nut myself and a diehard Hawks fan but I wouldn't call it religious or my love of the sport a religious experience....

However, I'm not going to say some fans take the sport they love too far.... That's we call them fanatics and not religious extremists.

Sorry, but bowling is hardly even close to religion outside of praying to God to have a good game or thanking God for getting a strike when you needed one...

IMO, I really don't think atheists understand religion and how us "believers" think.... I really can't tell you or even philosophize the concept with you because it's beyond philosophy or understanding - it's an experience....

Political philosophy I can decode but religion and the philosophy is a bit more difficult to explain.... Religion is just one of those things that takes faith, understanding, tolerance and forgiveness.... Now, if an individual can embrace those ideas they will be a lot happier - even if they can't or won't have faith.... At the very least - believer or not - it will give you some sort of piece of mind or humbleness....

However I cannot put my Christianity into any sort of context or philosophy that could be understood...... That would be like asking "what does water taste like" - try putting that into context...