• 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

And what is the message?
Everyone is free to make their own interpretations, but a predisposition to religious values is a possibility.

And what makes the message something that should not appear on state owned property?
A predisposition to religious values is a possibility.

If the people of a certain community want to raise funds for a monument to Allah and the city council approves of that use, why should it be forbidden to a free people?
Why should it be a function of the council approving it? Why allow one an not another?
 
as I stated the 1st amendment is a restriction placed on the federal government to make no law concerning religion, having a monument on public property is not law making.
But why aren't you addressing what I wrote?
 
I could go through the process of showing you how the definitions of words actually do change over time, but that lesson would be wasted on you.

It wouldn't get far with me, either, as far as the Constitution is concerned. I believe the Constitution should be interpreted according to the generally accepted definition of the words at the time they were written.

Besides it's the interpretation of the document that's important. And that job is left to the judicial system alone.

The Supreme Court claimed the right to review the constitutionality of federal laws in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. I don't question that right. But the Court did not claim it was the solearbiter of what the Constitution means until Cooper v. Aaron in 1958. And I do question that claim. Congress has several ways to check the Supreme Court. And the people of the states have the final say about what anything in the Constitution means.

This is freaking precious! The fact that it is a "living" document ALLOWED for the insertion of the bill of rights. If it wasn't amendable you could not own guns, women couldn't vote and black people would still be slaves. Are you really asking for a revert to the Constitution where there is no Bill of rights or other ammendments?

I have never seen an argument about the Constitution being a living, breathing document, including the ones made by Supreme Court justices, that was talking about amendments. You are conflating expansive interpretations of the Constitution with amendments to it in a very misleading way. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that's disingenuous of you.

What you are claiming is flatly untrue. The ability to amend the Constitution does not depend at all on how strictly or expansively the Supreme Court has interpreted it in its decisions. No one had to make the Constitution a "living document," in the sense liberals have used that term to justify interpreting its words to mean whatever they want it to, to allow any amendment to it--including the amendments you mention.

The men who wrote the Constitution purposely included within it specific procedures for amending it, in Article V. The very fact they did that strongly suggests that they did not intend for it to be "amended" by the shortcut stratagem of torturing its meaning to fit the demands of whatever political faction happened to be squawking loudest at the time.

The authors of the Constitution purposely made it hard to amend, by requiring a series of supermajority votes, for a damn good reason. And that is that a constitution which means nothing more than a simple majority--or even a vocal minority--can persuade a few judges to declare it means at a given time is not really a constitution at all. The document is the "Constitution of the United States"--not "Suggested Guidelines for Governing the United States."
 
But why aren't you addressing what I wrote?

because what I stated previously is constitutional law, plain and simple... to the point.

as far as religion and the constitution other then the 1st .... there is no religious test to be a representative of the government.

so why your giving me Muslims ....I don't know
 
" Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Does posting the Ten commandments on a Public building do that ?

And also, what does Sharia Law have to do with our Judeo Christian founding ?

Since we didn't have a Judeo Christian founding...
 
We're speaking in generalities here, not your specifics...

You asked which ones SHE disagreed with, of course you're going to get specifics.
 
Because what I proposed wold be unacceptable even if there was no laws passed. Point is that endorsement is just as good as law.

I wonder how the USSC is able to keep its 10 commandments and the image it displays of Moses.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to say Christian founding, however in forming the ideas and our laws of this land, the founders did express statements of Christianity in creating them.

More like Christianity expressed sentiments of humanity. The sentiments were around long before Christianity.
 
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people"....John Adams

Which says nothing about Christianity. However, this does:

"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 against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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." - George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli
 
Which says nothing about Christianity. However, this does:

"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 against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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." - George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli

Adams was a Christian person, so when he states it was created for a moral and religious people, that did of coarse include Christianity.

notice is you statement at its very beginning---As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

and that is correct ...the constitution which creates the federal government, it structure and FEDERALISM is not in any way religious, it not meant to me.....because It does what its supposed to do ......"create federalism"

however the idea of constitutional law, which embodies the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence, which does has overtones of the deity... rights from a higher power, not man, and man made laws have be no authority to alter or abolish those rights.

by the way...the declaration of independence is law........u.s. code... book 1 page 1
 
It wouldn't get far with me, either, as far as the Constitution is concerned. I believe the Constitution should be interpreted according to the generally accepted definition of the words at the time they were written.
Often times due to societal changes the USSC has opted to interpret based of the intent of a law as opposed to the definition of the words used (generally accepted definition at the time of authorship or not). This is at the behest of the sitting Judges and them alone.

The Supreme Court claimed the right to review the constitutionality of federal laws in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. I don't question that right. But the Court did not claim it was the solearbiter of what the Constitution means until Cooper v. Aaron in 1958. And I do question that claim. Congress has several ways to check the Supreme Court. And the people of the states have the final say about what anything in the Constitution means.
The only real check that congress has over the USSC is refusing to confirm a nominee, aside from that they would need to amend the constitution to reverse a USSC desicion. What other checks do they have exactly? And can you provide an example of how the preople somehow have final say on what the Constitution means? Are you suggesting the people can overturn USSC descisions?

II have never seen an argument about the Constitution being a living, breathing document, including the ones made by Supreme Court justices, that was talking about amendments. You are conflating expansive interpretations of the Constitution with amendments to it in a very misleading way. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that's disingenuous of you.
I am doing no such thing. The referemce to the constitution being a living document, was specifically refering to the amendment process.... hell its right there in black and white in the text you quoted from me. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think perhaps you misread what I wrote.
here is Fenton's original quote:
A Constitution thats " living '', or that can be corrupted based on the whims of extremely short sighted individuals is NOT a Constitution any more.
now look at my responce again. Fenton was arguing against the constitution being amendable (living) and trying to use those very same amendments (specifically the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment) to back up his previous arguments. See the irony there?

What you are claiming is flatly untrue. The ability to amend the Constitution does not depend at all on how strictly or expansively the Supreme Court has interpreted it in its decisions. No one had to make the Constitution a "living document," in the sense liberals have used that term to justify interpreting its words to mean whatever they want it to, to allow any amendment to it--including the amendments you mention.
I never made any such claim, once again giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think you may have misread. I said that if the constitution was not a living document (i.e. not amendable) that we never could have inserted the bill of rights, abolish slavery, given women the right to vote, or ensure people have the right to bear arms (at least constitutionally) As they are all amendments. Where on eartrh did you get the notion that somehow i said USSC interpretation was somehow part of the amendment process?

The men who wrote the Constitution purposely included within it specific procedures for amending it, in Article V. The very fact they did that strongly suggests that they did not intend for it to be "amended" by the shortcut stratagem of torturing its meaning to fit the demands of whatever political faction happened to be squawking loudest at the time.

The authors of the Constitution purposely made it hard to amend, by requiring a series of supermajority votes, for a damn good reason. And that is that a constitution which means nothing more than a simple majority--or even a vocal minority--can persuade a few judges to declare it means at a given time is not really a constitution at all. The document is the "Constitution of the United States"--not "Suggested Guidelines for Governing the United States."
Sooooo..... You're basically just complaining about USSC descision that you don't like? Or are you really trying to make the argument that the USSC is somehow amending the Constitution because they interpret it differently than you do?
 
Last edited:
Adams was a Christian person, so when he states it was created for a moral and religious people, that did of coarse include Christianity.

notice is you statement at its very beginning---As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

and that is correct ...the constitution which creates the federal government, it structure and FEDERALISM is not in any way religious, it not meant to me.....because It does what its supposed to do ......"create federalism"

however the idea of constitutional law, which embodies the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence, which does has overtones of the deity... rights from a higher power, not man, and man made laws have be no authority to alter or abolish those rights.

by the way...the declaration of independence is law........u.s. code... book 1 page 1

Which again, says nothing about Christianity at all. It's one thing for John Adams to have a personal opinion, it's entirely another to have it codified into law, as the Treaty of Tripoli did. Overtones of a deity says nothing about Christianity specifically, which is what people claim. This was not a nation founded and based on Christianity. It just wasn't.
 
Others here can follow the conversation, and see for themselves how it went down. Now with that said, I can tell you for sure that your view is unconstitutional. From the Constitution of the United States......

"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."

There it is in black and white.

1) While it says Congress, The Supreme Court ruled, in Everson v. Board of Education (330 U.S. 1), that the Establishment Clause also applies to state and local governments, not just the federal government.

2) But what was on the mind of our forefathers, when the penned the First Amendment. It is pretty straightforward, when you look at this writing penned by Thomas Jefferson himself.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson

3) Now, while the meaning of the establishment clause is still up in the air, as to whether or not ANY religious symbols or writings are allowed to by put on public buildings, it is clear no government is allowed to pick and choose one religion over the other as to the choosing of those religious symbols or writings. For in doing so, they are "Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to other religions, as defined in the First Amendment. This is unconstitutional.

4) Now for the icing on the cake. How did our forefathers feel about religions other than Christianity? Thomas Jefferson again....

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. "

-Thomas Jefferson

That's right. Freedom of religion does not apply to just one religion. It applies to ALL religions, and no government is allowed to pick and choose which religions are going to be favored. If that upsets you, then maybe you should just move to a nation that practices theocracy, because that is exactly what you are promoting. You might try Iran. While the Mullahs there might disagree with which religion you would choose to foist on the people, they would certainly agree with you that government should be dictated by a single religion of their choosing. That is not only unamerican, but is a view that is dangerous to the American way of life itself.

Did I say that freedom of religion doesn't apply to all religions? Perhaps YOU should follow the conversation?
 
I wonder how the USSC is able to keep its 10 commandments and the image it displays of Moses.

Moses is depicted as just one of a group of law-makers. The Ten Commandments are not on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has depicted scrolls with Roman numerals I to X. The architect of the building has said that represents the Bill of Rights.
 
now look at my responce again. Fenton was arguing against the constitution being amendable (living) and trying to use those very same amendments (specifically the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment) to back up his previous arguments. See the irony there?

There's no irony what so ever.

I argued the Constitution was not a " living breathing document" and that the words that make up the Constitution have never changed their meaning.

There's only one meaning for the words " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The Judge and those who agree with his activist ruling are wrong to assert that the posting of the Ten Commandments in a Public building equates to new laws being passed by Congress supporting that religion.

And yes, the judges ruling is a attempt to amend the Constitution by redefining the clear and distinct definition of the words that make up the establishment clause.
 
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.

What historic precedence does Satanism have in America?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom