• 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

RogueWarrior said:
Never knew.
Click to expand...
You never knew because cultural vestiges like religious symbols are benign. They do not establish a state religion or give any religion municipal power. The 10 comandments are the same. Their presence doesn't brake the wall of separation and their absence doesn't harm Christians. Both sides are working together to waist everyone's time & money.
 
Jerry said:
You never knew because cultural vestiges like religious symbols are benign. They do not establish a state religion or give any religion municipal power. The 10 comandments are the same. Their presence doesn't brake the wall of separation and their absence doesn't harm Christians. Both sides are working together to waist everyone's time & money.
Click to expand...

What is the first commandment?
 
Jerry said:
Nope. The first comandment is not the origin or beginning of any religion.
Click to expand...

How is this statement not demanding that one believe in the god of Moses?

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Granted it is not the origin of religion, but it's the first requirement within the tablet to adopt this particular religion.
 
Summerwind said:
How is this statement not demanding that one believe in the god of Moses?

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Granted it is not the origin of religion, but it's the first requirement within the tablet to adopt this particular religion.
Click to expand...
It's not the State making the comand any more than your post is making the command. Both your post and the State are merly saying the command is part of the religion. Neither you nore the State is requiring anyone to obay that command.
 
Jerry said:
It's not the State making the comand.
Click to expand...

So we agree if it has nothing to do with "the State" and is only a religious presentation, it does not belong in public space individually with no other religious presentations (as was the case in one that was allowed because it was part of an overall historic type display and was not standalone.).
 
Summerwind said:
So we agree if it has nothing to do with "the State" and is only a religious presentation, it does not belong in public space individually with no other religious presentations (as was the case in one that was allowed because it was part of an overall historic type display and was not standalone.).
Click to expand...
All religions of the people diserve to be presented in the public. It's part of who we are.
 
Jerry said:
All religions of the people diserve to be presented in the public. It's part of who we are.
Click to expand...

IF all, then I agree, but to date, pretty much only Judeo/Christian displays are allowed to be installed in a permanent fashion.
 
Jerry said:
You never knew because cultural vestiges like religious symbols are benign. They do not establish a state religion or give any religion municipal power. The 10 comandments are the same. Their presence doesn't brake the wall of separation and their absence doesn't harm Christians. Both sides are working together to waist everyone's time & money.
Click to expand...

Only because these displays are a waste of time and money. If everyone just gave up on them, they wouldn't cost anything or take any time, there would be no court cases, etc. People need to stop trying to commemorate their religious views on public land, period.
 
Jerry said:
All religions of the people diserve to be presented in the public. It's part of who we are.
Click to expand...

Says who? If a religion wants to present itself to the public, they can do it on private property. That's what churches do, after all, isn't it?
 
Jerry said:
You're the one who asked what it was, which means you don't know. You had asked me, which means you know that I know.
Click to expand...

I know what it means. That's why it can't be on the public square. You just want to dance around it because you know it's true.
 
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...

Sounds to me like it is you that is getting all "butt-hurt" over this. There are plenty of places to put the 10 Commandments. No one is denying anyone the opportunity to place them in 99% of the places they want. Why is it necessary to post religious icons on governmental squares?
 
Summerwind said:
IF all, then I agree, but to date, pretty much only Judeo/Christian displays are allowed to be installed in a permanent fashion.
Click to expand...
I've never seen a complete list off all aplications ever submitted and their result to know that all religions have even tried to display something, to then see a clear bias of only allowing Judeo-Christian themes.

Where bias can can be shown, is that policy or is that just one judge? The problem could be just a few biased people in office and not the whole government.

Many religions wouldn't apply for a display, either, like Buddhism, so even in the best case we still would never see each and every single religion in the public presentation.

If we say that every religion would apply and every aplication was treated fairly, some presintations may yet be denied on the basis of nudity or graphic depiction of animal/human sacrifice. PETA has its lawyers, too.

If we say that every religion would apply and every aplication was treated fairly and every presentation was PG, religions don't all have an equal number of members funding the effort. Some presintations would be greater or less than others.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol....

No, Hitler was NOT a Christian. I understand WHY that narrative has been perpetuated but I don't understand why so many so effortlessly buy into it without even thinking about cracking open a History book.


Hitler was pushing for the creation of a National Reich Church and had he stayed in power there's no doubt he would have succeeded.

Here are a few points taken from the National Rieche Church's 30 point program.

1. The National Reich's Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich; it declares these to be national churches:

5. The National Reich Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably and by every means the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

7. The National Reich Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

10. The National Reich Church irrevocably strives for complete union with the state. It must obey the state as one of its servants. As such, it demands that all landed possessions of all churches and religious denominations be handed over to the state. It forbids that in future churches should secure ownership of even the smallest piece of German soil or that such be ever given back to them. Not the churches conquer and cultivate land and soil but exclusively the German nation, the German state.

13. The National Reich Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany as well as the publication of Sunday papers, pamphlets, publications and books of a religious nature.


14. The National Reich Church has to take severe measures in order to prevent the Bible and other christian publications being imported into Germany.

15. The National Reich Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuhrer's "Mein Kampf" is the greatest of all documents. It is conscious that this book contains and embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.

18. The National Reich Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of Saints.

19. On the altars there must be nothing but "Mein Kampf", which is to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book, and to the left of the altar a sword.

22. The National Reich Church repudiates the christening of German children, particularly the christening with water and the Holy Ghost.

28. The National Reich Church rejects the customary day of prayer and atonement. It demands that this be transferred to the holiday commemorating the laying of the foundation stone of the National Reich Church.


And............

Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Cephus said:
Only because these displays are a waste of time and money. If everyone just gave up on them, they wouldn't cost anything or take any time, there would be no court cases, etc. People need to stop trying to commemorate their religious views on public land, period.
Click to expand...
The first such displays I became aware of were erected by a non-profit, not taxpayer money. IMO private people are free to waste their money how they choose.
 
Fenton said:
Lol....

No, Hitler was NOT a Christian. I understand WHY that narrative has been perpetuated but I don't understand why so many so effortlessly buy into it without even thinking about cracking open a History book.
Click to expand...

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

Hitler was very clear that he was a Christian. Whether you like that or not, that doesn't change the fact. Try again.
 
Jerry said:
The first such displays I became aware of were erected by a non-profit, not taxpayer money. IMO private people are free to waste their money how they choose.
Click to expand...

On public land. It doesn't matter who pays for it, where it stands does. No matter who pays for it, it's still a waste of money.
 
Jerry said:
I've never seen a complete list off all aplications ever submitted and their result to know that all religions have even tried to display something, to then see a clear bias of only allowing Judeo-Christian themes.

Where bias can can be shown, is that policy or is that just one judge? The problem could be just a few biased people in office and not the whole government.

Many religions wouldn't apply for a display, either, like Buddhism, so even in the best case we still would never see each and every single religion in the public presentation.

If we say that every religion would apply and every aplication was treated fairly, some presintations may yet be denied on the basis of nudity or graphic depiction of animal/human sacrifice. PETA has its lawyers, too.

If we say that every religion would apply and every aplication was treated fairly and every presentation was PG, religions don't all have an equal number of members funding the effort.
Click to expand...
From what I'm reading here and have knowledge of from the past. For the most part, federal judges are "removing" 10 commandments that are not part of a larger presentation. So it seems that if a community is allowing a reasonably comprehensive display, then judges are allowing, if standalone, it's being refused. My understanding is that in the latter, other monuments were requested and offered to be paid by private funds but put on public property, and those resulted in the 10Cs being ordered to be removed. This whole comment is based solely on my memory, so take it with a grain or two of salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom