Article (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/12/10.commandments.ap/index.html)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will take up the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government land and buildings, a surprise announcement that puts justices in the middle of a politically sensitive issue.

Justices have repeatedly refused to revisit issues raised by their 1980 decision that banned the posting of copies of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

In the meantime, lower courts have reached a hodgepodge of conflicting rulings that allow displays in some instances but not in others.

The high court will hear an appeal early next year involving displays in Kentucky and Texas.

In the Texas case, the justices will decide if a Ten Commandments monument on the state Capitol grounds is an unconstitutional attempt to establish state-sponsored religion.

A homeless man, Thomas Van Orden, lost his lawsuit to have the 6-foot tall red granite removed. The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the monument to the state in 1961. The group gave scores of similar monuments to American towns during the 1950's and '60's, and those have been the subject of multiple court fights.

Separately, they will consider whether a lower court wrongly barred the posting of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses.

McCreary and Pulaski county officials hung framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses and later added other documents, such as the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence, after the display was challenged.

The Ten Commandments contain both religious and secular directives, including the familiar proscriptions on stealing, killing and adultery. The Bible says God gave the list to Moses.

The Constitution bars any state "establishment" of religion. That means the government cannot promote religion in general, or favor one faith over another.

I also heard this on the news today.

I do not necessarily care either way- posted or not. I'll live with whatever goes. However, my personal opinion votes 'no'.

I vote no because the courts are part of the state- and putting religious scripture like that is sort of a form of state-sponsered religion, like the article said. I don't have a particularly STRONG opinion, but thats just the way I am leaning. But i mean, since they are not to favor one religion in general... if they put up the 10 commandments, what about other religious 'law', or scripture?

Im more curious in what others think about this- since this is...a sorta new issue , I guess.

i strongly feel that they should not be posted. All the people who walk into a court room won't all believe in the Ten Commandments. The government runs a nation, not a religion.

From a legal standpoint, there is no right answer. You could argue that since the establishment clause of the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...", it does not outlaw the displaying of religious documents in state buildings. The First Amendment deals with what laws may or may not be passed by Congress, not what govt. buildings are allowed to display.

On the other hand, one could argue that such displays violate the spirit of the clause, specifically the separation of church and state.

So neither interpretation is "right" as one side violates the letter of the law, and the other violates its spirit. It's up to the courts to decide.

Under a system of private courts, which I favor to replace the state-monopoly court system, this would be a non-issue, since each court would represent its customers, and not all the people of an entire nation.

Here's an article describing what I'm talking about:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~jhasnas/MythWeb.htm

And here's a description of how courts would work in the absence of government:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

[QUOTE=cruithne]From a legal standpoint, there is no right answer. You could argue that since the establishment clause of the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

thank you for stating that. :) here is my input the ten commandments being banned, I am still shock that america done that. I mean those ten commandments been in court houses for years. Now they are seprating church from state, that is stupid and pointless we have better things to do then listen to one big mouth out their saying it breaks all the rules. Like cruithne said, their is no right answer. I still say that was a big mistake, and pray that it aien't to late.

Actually the establishment clause in these cases has been interpreted very clearly by the Supreme Court in the past.

We will see how they rule this time, but there is very little ambiguity in how they should rule based on rulings such as Engle v. Vitale in the past.

The establishment clause was meant to protect religion from the government, not the other way around.

Five words:
"God save this honorable court"

Four more words:
"In God we trust"

Four more words:
"One nation under God"

<3 Mary

The establishment clause was meant to protect religion from the government, not the other way around.

Well thats not entirely true, it was also put in so that you didnt have the Pope or other religious leaders running the government.


Edit: (I couldnt double quote for some reason) Mary in response to what you said, God is a generic term, the ten commandments is solely a Christian symbol.

Well thats not entirely true, it was also put in so that you didnt have the Pope or other religious leaders running the government.


Edit: (I couldnt double quote for some reason) Mary in response to what you said, God is a generic term, the ten commandments is solely a Christian symbol.

Yes, you are correct, anus...But that doesn't nullify my point.

I also happen to think that Atheism and Agnosticism are both religions. Atheism is currently running our government. But how do we combat that?

Yes, you are correct, anus...But that doesn't nullify my point.

I also happen to think that Atheism and Agnosticism are both religions. Atheism is currently running our government. But how do we combat that?
You are, indeed, correct, mbmanus. I failed to note that. But wait - God is still a religious figure. And I do believe that Jews would object to your characterization of the 10 Commandments as solely a Christian document.

ToB, there is no way to combat that without appearing bigoted. But you're right. God forbid we be intolerant of them (although they're not tolerant of us).

Yes, you are correct, anus...But that doesn't nullify my point.

I also happen to think that Atheism and Agnosticism are both religions. Atheism is currently running our government. But how do we combat that?


No atheism is not running our government, nore is agnosticism. The government is not saying there is no God.

They are simply staying out of it all together.

As well they should.

No atheism is not running our government, nore is agnosticism. The government is not saying there is no God.

They are simply staying out of it all together.

As well they should.

Which is an agnostic point of view...Thanks for helping to make my point, anus. ;)

Hmm...

I'm an Atheist. Trust me - it's not a religion. It's the fervent belief that there is no God... once you believe that, you believe that there is no point in religion. Just wanted to clear that up ;)

Anyways... the debate...

OK... So, the body that administers the Law in your land seems to express a leaning towards one religion by having the Christian 10 Commandments on the wall, yet it must meet justice to all equally regardless of their beliefs, because the Law is the Law be you Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Taoist or 7th day advent Hoppist... (British courts have the same kind of bias... )

Unless you accept that America is a Theocracy then this is surely unfair? I mean, if you guys were to come out and say "That's it - America is Christian, period, Hallelujah", then I couldn't really argue with it. You'd be sending a message in unambiguous terms saying "If you're not Christian, you're a second class citizen". But to my knowledge, the Land Of The Free ISN 'T a Theocracy... it's a Great Big Meltin' Pot™

Let me put it this way - would you think you were about to get good and fair justice if, as a Christian, you found yourself in an unashamedly pro-Muslim court in a land you perceived to dislike Christians as a group? Of course not. Imagine how a Muslim, post 9/11, must feel in America (and Britain, let's not be biased) knowing that most people see them as terrorists-in-waiting. I'm talking about the lowest common denomenator here, but let's not kid ourselves about who "the mob" are.

Justice under the Law MUST be the same for everyone. Therefore the Law MUST be the same to everyone. By definition, therefore, religion CAN'T come into it, is it is not the same to everyone.

My tuppence there.

:)

I don't suppose that anyone cares recalling that the US Supreme Court has several displays of the 10 Commandments in the building, including in a frieze above the bench. Anyone care to guess what the Court is going to decide?

To be fare, though, I think that the 10 Commandments are properly displayed in context in the Supreme Court building. They are displayed right next to Hammurabi's Code. In this context, the 10 Commandments is being shown in a legalistic and historical context, not religious. The 10 Commandments was a major stepping stone in the developement of law and ethics and of Western Culture. It isn't just a religious symbol. Not sure if that contextual argument has any bearing.

Oh, and Head, bad news about your statement about Atheism. Our Supreme Court said that Secular Humanism is a religion in Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961.

Hmm...

I'm an Atheist. Trust me - it's not a religion. It's the fervent belief that there is no God... once you believe that, you believe that there is no point in religion. Just wanted to clear that up ;)


I tend to think of atheism as a religion since it makes an ironbound and unprovable statement on the nature (or lack thereof) of Divinity, but that agnosticism is clearly not one and cannot be construed to be one.


Unless you accept that America is a Theocracy then this is surely unfair? I mean, if you guys were to come out and say "That's it - America is Christian, period, Hallelujah", then I couldn't really argue with it. You'd be sending a message in unambiguous terms saying "If you're not Christian, you're a second class citizen". But to my knowledge, the Land Of The Free ISN 'T a Theocracy... it's a Great Big Meltin' Pot™


Art. 11. 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 Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.


Ratified by the unanimously by the senate in 7 June 1797 and proudly proclaimed to the United States by John Adams, who was an extremely Christian president.


I don't suppose that anyone cares recalling that the US Supreme Court has several displays of the 10 Commandments in the building, including in a frieze above the bench. Anyone care to guess what the Court is going to decide?


You might want to mention what else they have posted in that same room.

In this context, the 10 Commandments is being shown in a legalistic and historical context, not religious. The 10 Commandments was a major stepping stone in the developement of law and ethics and of Western Culture. It isn't just a religious symbol. Not sure if that contextual argument has any bearing.Ah, but I think it does... Remember that when that building was put up and when many of the laws were made, a MASSIVE percentqage of the population (or at least the power base) were committed Christians. So, it had relevancy and legitemacy when it was originally put there...

Times change, though...

Oh, and Head, bad news about your statement about Atheism. Our Supreme Court said that Secular Humanism is a religion in Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961.
OK, this isn't really the argument, but...

Hey, if your courts feel the need to define the mindset of someone who doesn't believe in God in the same context as someone who does, fair enough. But remember - Torcaso vs Watkins has no relevance or meaning in my country ;).

Every definition of religion that I've ever come across includes a need for a spiritual basis, "higher power" or institutionalisation of a belief structure. I don't believe in any of those. I have no religion.

And you can't tell me I do. So nyaah. :p

Hey, if your courts feel the need to define the mindset of someone who doesn't believe in God in the same context as someone who does, fair enough. But remember - Torcaso vs Watkins has no relevance or meaning in my country ;).

Every definition of religion that I've ever come across includes a need for a spiritual basis, "higher power" or institutionalisation of a belief structure. I don't believe in any of those. I have no religion.

And you can't tell me I do. So nyaah. :p

Dammit Head, this is a debate about AMERICA, bitch! You're not an American! [/jingoism]

With Atheism/Humanism, that "higher power" is man, and that belief structure is whatever you feel at the time. ;) Your religion is YOU.

We had a very interesting debate about this earlier in IRC. Too bad you weren't there. ;)

Which is an agnostic point of view...Thanks for helping to make my point, anus. ;)

no agnostics believe the concept of God is too complex for the human mind to comprehend, whereas the government is staying out of the debate because they dont want to offend anyone or to influence anyone elses view.

no agnostics believe the concept of God is too complex for the human mind to comprehend, whereas the government is staying out of the debate because they dont want to offend anyone or to influence anyone elses view.

But the problem with your argument is that the government is NOT staying out of the debate. The Supreme Court will usually side on that of the atheistic viewpoint; which is, in and of itself, a differing "ideology" and even religion than Christianity is.

But the problem with your argument is that the government is NOT staying out of the debate. The Supreme Court will usually side on that of the atheistic viewpoint; which is, in and of itself, a differing "ideology" and even religion than Christianity is.



You are right, and it pisses me off. I see these candidates giving speeches at Christian conventions, saying how they will uphold "Christian" values, and I think "thats not your job".

If it were up to me, I would make it illegal for candidates to hold rallies or give speeches at religious events.

You are right, and it pisses me off. I see these candidates giving speeches at Christian conventions, saying how they will uphold "Christian" values, and I think "thats not your job".

If it were up to me, I would make it illegal for candidates to hold rallies or give speeches at religious events.

But upholding "Christian values" is part of being involved with a representative government, as long as your constituents hold the same beliefs.

The majority of people in this country are Christians or identify with a Christian belief system, and as long as that is true, then I don't see any reason why the representatives shouldn't uphold the principles that their constituents hold dear.

But upholding "Christian values" is part of being involved with a representative government, as long as your constituents hold the same beliefs.

The majority of people in this country are Christians or identify with a Christian belief system, and as long as that is true, then I don't see any reason why the representatives shouldn't uphold the principles that their constituents hold dear.


They should uphold their constituents political views, cuz thats their job. It is not their job to uphold their relgious views, that is unconstitutional. Is it splitting hairs? yes it is.

Are our ideals linked closely to Christianity? yes they are, but there are nonsecular reasons why we have our views that are also tied to our faith.

Politicians should focus on those nonsecular reasons.

They should uphold their constituents political views, cuz thats their job. It is not their job to uphold their relgious views, that is unconstitutional. Is it splitting hairs? yes it is.

Are our ideals linked closely to Christianity? yes they are, but there are nonsecular reasons why we have our views that are also tied to our faith.

Politicians should focus on those nonsecular reasons.
I'm sure you meant secular, not nonsecular. Secular means worldly, while nonsecular implies religious.

Oh, and atheism is definitely a religion.

<3 MaryTooLazyToColor

The majority of people in this country are Christians or identify with a Christian belief system, and as long as that is true, then I don't see any reason why the representatives shouldn't uphold the principles that their constituents hold dear.
So would it be fair to say that in your opinion, it's okay to have laws that are fair to only 3 out of 4 people? Do you not believe that putting up a sign in which the first commandment happens to be "ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'"? Basically it's telling anyone who is not a Christian, that they're god is second rate.

A court more so then any other form of state, must remain impartial. This happens to be a public building paid for by everybodies taxes, not just Christians. Therefore everyone should get equal representation under FEDERAL law, without a Christian flavour to it.

Key word here- majority.

So would it be fair to say that in your opinion, it's okay to have laws that are fair to only 3 out of 4 people?

Well, let's ask the question you ask in reverse. Is it ok to have laws that are fair to only 1 out of 4 people? If you make a law respecting atheism over Christianity/Buddhism/Islam/etc then that is essentially what you are doing.

Well, let's ask the question you ask in reverse. Is it ok to have laws that are fair to only 1 out of 4 people? If you make a law respecting atheism over Christianity/Buddhism/Islam/etc then that is essentially what you are doing.


Lets put it in reverse for you as well. Say Islam was the dominant religion, and you are a Christian. How would you feel about the government making Islam the official religion of the country, and erecting Islamic symbols all over the government buildings?

Lets put it in reverse for you as well. Say Islam was the dominant religion, and you are a Christian. How would you feel about the government making Islam the official religion of the country, and erecting Islamic symbols all over the government buildings?

Are we talking about making a religion the official religion of the country? No. Are we talking about erecting new symbols favoring one religion over another? No. What we are talking about here are symbols that have been in place for a very long time (ie, on and in the Supreme Court building) alongside other significant historical symbols of law. The 10 Commandments are not only a religious symbol, but they are a historical symbol as well.

they are a historical symbol as well.

have the ten commandments been found?

edit: sorry about mixing up the secular and nonsecular.

Well, let's ask the question you ask in reverse. Is it ok to have laws that are fair to only 1 out of 4 people? If you make a law respecting atheism over Christianity/Buddhism/Islam/etc then that is essentially what you are doing.Only, the absense of quoting from a bible, does not make someone atheist. Nobody said a political figure can't practice religion outside of work, they just can't use that religion against someone else. There is no reason whatsoever that the subject of religion (or non-religion) need ever come up in school or a courtroom setting. Perhaps if you can give me an example of an instance you have in mind, i might better understand you. Otherwise, i can't imagine why anyone would think it was the government's job to confirm nor deny the existance of a god. To do so would be nothing short of preaching.

Funny how religion is the only thing left in the world, that is still widely accepted to discriminate. If you're gay, and you join a club, nobody can be discrimate against you based on your sexuality, same with your sex, weight, height, whatever. Yet at the same tokin, if you were to make a club for boys and called it boy scouts, you would have every right to kick a non-christian out of said club. The point I'm trying to make here is that christians have every right to kick out a non-christian out of their clubs, as they were created solely for them, like church, and so why not remain private?

However, schools and courtrooms, were not created under christianity, but were created to be neutral, and therefore cannot exclude others, whatever there religion lack or lack of happens to be. By displaying religious monuments, you infact are. If someone happened to not believe in that particular god or any god for that matter, it would only be fair to assume that person may be offended by such things.

Take away the fact that christianity is one of the leading practiced religions in America for a moment, and answer me this: With atleast 7 major religions practiced in your very own country, doesn't it just make sense that no religion should take priority over the other? If you disagree, I'm curious to know how discriminating against 7 other broadly practiced religions make more sense.

Funny how religion is the only thing left in the world, that is still widely accepted to discriminate. If you're gay, and you join a club, nobody can be discrimate against you based on your sexuality, same with your sex, weight, height, whatever. Unfortunately, in the U.S., this is not the case. Discrimination based on sexual orientation and even gender is an allowable practice for private groups.

Only, the absense of quoting from a bible, does not make someone atheist. Nobody said a political figure can't practice religion outside of work, they just can't use that religion against someone else. There is no reason whatsoever that the subject of religion (or non-religion) need ever come up in school or a courtroom setting. Perhaps if you can give me an example of an instance you have in mind, i might better understand you. Otherwise, i can't imagine why anyone would think it was the government's job to confirm nor deny the existance of a god. To do so would be nothing short of preaching.

I never said it was the government's job to confirm or deny the existence of God. However, it is the government's job to provide equal protection under the law to all groups, including religious organizations. When you adopt a specific atheistic viewpoint, you are discriminating against religious organizations.

Funny how religion is the only thing left in the world, that is still widely accepted to discriminate. If you're gay, and you join a club, nobody can be discrimate against you based on your sexuality, same with your sex, weight, height, whatever. Yet at the same tokin, if you were to make a club for boys and called it boy scouts, you would have every right to kick a non-christian out of said club. The point I'm trying to make here is that christians have every right to kick out a non-christian out of their clubs, as they were created solely for them, like church, and so why not remain private?

Not sure I get your point here. As a straight person I would be discriminated against if I joined a gay club, and if I were a girl, I would not be allowed to join the boy scouts. I can't join a union unless I am of a certain profession.

However, schools and courtrooms, were not created under christianity, but were created to be neutral, and therefore cannot exclude others, whatever there religion lack or lack of happens to be. By displaying religious monuments, you infact are. If someone happened to not believe in that particular god or any god for that matter, it would only be fair to assume that person may be offended by such things.

You are certainly correct, but the issue is not as black and white as you make it sound. You make it sound as if it is as simple as removing everything that could possibly offend someone. This is simply not feasible. I may be offended by the color red. Are you going to remove this from every school and government building? If 1 in 10 students (purely hypothetical number that I pulled from my ass) is offended by the display of a "religious monument," do you override the rights of the other 9 students who enjoy that monument in order to provide for the rights of the one student?

Take away the fact that christianity is one of the leading practiced religions in America for a moment, and answer me this: With atleast 7 major religions practiced in your very own country, doesn't it just make sense that no religion should take priority over the other? If you disagree, I'm curious to know how discriminating against 7 other broadly practiced religions make more sense.

Displaying a historical expression of religion is a much different issue than displaying a religious artifact. This is not "discrimination". This is a displaying a historical representation

The "Lemon test" from 1971's Lemon vs. Kurtzman states that a government action does not violate the First Amendment if it is 1) secular in purpose, 2) neither inhibits nor promotes religion and 3) does not "entangle" government with religion. Displaying the 10 Commandments as a historical expression meets all three of these requirements, and thusly does not violate the First Amendment. Whether you like it or not, our country's laws were founded on the 10 Commandments, and as such, displaying them is an historical expression.

I don't think they should be there. I'm not Christian, and I don't appreciate that the law should be run only on Christian values. I mean, what if the Wiccan Rede (a form of moral codes in Wicca, like the Ten Commandments) were placed outside of a courthouse of somewhere else which is public, goverment property? It would only give off the feeling that this house only operates under the Wiccan law. There would be no seperation between the state and religion.

I don't think they should be there. I'm not Christian, and I don't appreciate that the law should be run only on Christian values. I mean, what if the Wiccan Rede (a form of moral codes in Wicca, like the Ten Commandments) were placed outside of a courthouse of somewhere else which is public, goverment property? It would only give off the feeling that this house only operates under the Wiccan law. There would be no seperation between the state and religion.

Um, I'm sorry, but our country's laws ARE based on Christian values and the ten commandments. Now, in recent years that is much less apparent, but it is still true nonetheless. Our legal system is not based on Wicca, Islam, or Buddhism.

Um, I'm sorry, but our country's laws ARE based on Christian values and the ten commandments. Now, in recent years that is much less apparent, but it is still true nonetheless. Our legal system is not based on Wicca, Islam, or Buddhism.


Its also based on Roman law, which is not Christian. Just because our laws are based on Christian values, doesnt mean we have to throw that relgion in their face.

I am pretty sure you believe in relgious tolerance; that not only includes allowing other religions to practice, but also not throwing your relgion in their face. Which is exactly what that is doing.

Its also based on Roman law, which is not Christian. Just because our laws are based on Christian values, doesnt mean we have to throw that relgion in their face.

I am pretty sure you believe in relgious tolerance; that not only includes allowing other religions to practice, but also not throwing your relgion in their face. Which is exactly what that is doing.
So...since our country is partially based on Roman religious law, do you think that the statues of blind Themis, goddess of justice, should be removed from court buildings?

Of course not! There are historical contexts to it, and our legal system was based upon it.

Tell me, how is that different?

<3 Mary

P.S. While I believe that each individual has a right to worship as he or she chooses, that does not mean that I must stifle my own religious expression. That's inhibiting the free exercise thereof, and it's a violation of the First Amendment.

On an entirely different note: Would it be different if Christians went to the courthouse every day and held up a Ten Commandments display? That would certainly be legal, though I'm unsure how it's qualitatively different. Hmm...

It is different because it is a dead religion.

Also, erecting a monument of the Ten Commandments is not you expressing your relgion.

Its the government expressing your religion for you. That is unconstitutional.
If you want to express your religion, express it. Go out in the streets and talk about your religion to anyone you want to.

But erecting a monument that is funded by taxpayers dollars that is a relgious symbol is unconstitutional.

I wonder how Muslims feel about their tax dollars being used to erect a Christian symbol?

And the ten commandments as a historical document is also open for debate.

It is different because it is a dead religion.
A religion is a religion is a religion.

Also, erecting a monument of the Ten Commandments is not you expressing your relgion.

Its the government expressing your religion for you. That is unconstitutional.
If you want to express your religion, express it. Go out in the streets and talk about your religion to anyone you want to.

But erecting a monument that is funded by taxpayers dollars that is a relgious symbol is unconstitutional.

I wonder how Muslims feel about their tax dollars being used to erect a Christian symbol?

Most, if not all, of these monuments were paid by private citizens and donated. If it were funded by tax dollars, there would be no question that it is unconstitutional. It's the same thing as you donating a park bench to your local park and engraving "Allah is king of the universe" on it. The city didn't pay for it, but nonetheless it is sitting on public land.

And the ten commandments as a historical document is also open for debate.
No, it is not. It's as much a historical document as the Code of Hammurabi.

It is different because it is a dead religion.
I assure you, you have just offended some religious person on this board. It is not a dead religion. On the contrary, many pagans choose to worship the Greco-Roman pantheon.

I assure you, you have just offended some religious person on this board. It is not a dead religion. On the contrary, many pagans choose to worship the Greco-Roman pantheon.

To be fair, Mary, I seriously doubt that.

A lot of them will play Dungeons and Dragons, but that's another story.

:)

To be fair, Mary, I seriously doubt that.

A lot of them will play Dungeons and Dragons, but that's another story.

:)
Convince yourself these people exist (http://www.tftb.com/deify/greco.htm)

Seriously. These people are out there. And I'm sure we have at least one of them in our midst.

<3 Mary

Convince yourself these people exist (http://www.tftb.com/deify/greco.htm)

Seriously. These people are out there. And I'm sure we have at least one of them in our midst.

<3 Mary

OK... I'll give them until this time tomorrow... If no-one comes forward as a true worshipper of Apollo or Ares, then I'll take it I'm correct.

If anyone DOES, then I know the number of a good psychologist. It's OK, kids... he plays Runequest... you'll be assured of a sympathetic ear...

I command you bitches to know your role.

Straw men R us, obviously.

What does Themis represent and what is she being used as a symbol of?

Now ask that same question about the ten commandments.

Straw men R us, obviously.

What does Themis represent and what is she being used as a symbol of?

Now ask that same question about the ten commandments.

Your to smart for me Lly, what is she being used as?

Enlighten me buddy...
:)

Your to smart for me Lly, what is she being used as?

Enlighten me buddy...
:)

Themis represents law and order--she is not there as a symbol of the goddess Themis, nor is the statue there in any kind of religious context. The religions today which follow the Greek and Roman pantheons are reconstructions that do not predate the statue's use. When it was put in place, no one was citing Themis as a deity, but rather Themis as a symbol.

The mural in the Supreme Court building is similar. It portrays the evolution of law, which rightly includes both Mohammad and the 10 Commandments.

It is about the reasons they get placed, not the presence of the 10 Commandments themselves. The people who are screaming that the 10 Commandments should be displayed would probably flinch if it was brought up that we should also decorate with text out of the Koran or--even more severely--the Rede of the Wiccae, a prayer to Tyr or Óðinn, or an equivalent.

Take Moore: He placed them there to show the dominant influence of the Christian God over the law (that the 10 commandments are technically Jewish not withstanding). His statements about the monument and his position were repeatedly and vocally demonstrated. He was clearly of the view that it was a testament to an established religion within the government. He cited the Old Testament in his court rulings.

Compare and contrast with Themis's portrayal as an archetype.

This post is making my head hurt.....

Lly....let me first apoligize if I offended anyone. It wasnt my intention

While the 10 Commandments is a part of our system of law, it is apparent that there were religious reasons for erecting that momument.

In fact, when asked why he refused to take it down, the Chief Justice continously said his God would not allow it. What he says makes the practical reasoning sound like an excuse. It sounds like a cover for another religious reason it was put in there, and that reasoning is dangerous.

I never said it was the government's job to confirm or deny the existence of God. However, it is the government's job to provide equal protection under the law to all groups, including religious organizations. When you adopt a specific atheistic viewpoint, you are discriminating against religious organizations. Wrong. Teaching that "God does not exist" would be the athiest viewpoint, not talking about religion is not an athiest viewpoint, it is the neutral stance.
You are certainly correct, but the issue is not as black and white as you make it sound. You make it sound as if it is as simple as removing everything that could possibly offend someone. This is simply not feasible. I may be offended by the color red. Are you going to remove this from every school and government building? Couldn't think of a real example could you? Everything offensive has already been removed from public buildings. It was feasable.If 1 in 10 students (purely hypothetical number that I pulled from my ass) is offended by the display of a "religious monument," do you override the rights of the other 9 students who enjoy that monument in order to provide for the rights of the one student?
What are you talking about? Since when did people have a right to place religious monuments in public owned buildings? Never, that's when.
Displaying a historical expression of religion is a much different issue than displaying a religious artifact. This is not "discrimination". This is a displaying a historical representation

The "Lemon test" from 1971's Lemon vs. Kurtzman states that a government action does not violate the First Amendment if it is 1) secular in purpose, 2) neither inhibits nor promotes religion and 3) does not "entangle" government with religion. Displaying the 10 Commandments as a historical expression meets all three of these requirements, and thusly does not violate the First Amendment. Whether you like it or not, our country's laws were founded on the 10 Commandments, and as such, displaying them is an historical expression. I'm sure a lot of people (Christians) agree with you, the US government doesn't seem to be one of them though. Remember that big case last year (note: not 23 years ago) concerning the placement of the 10 commandments at a courthouse? A panel ruled that it "violated the U.S. Constitution's principle of separation of religion and government." and had it removed. The end. :p

Wrong. Teaching that "God does not exist" would be the athiest viewpoint, not talking about religion is not an athiest viewpoint, it is the neutral stance.

It is an agnostic philosophy which is just as religious as an atheist ideology.

Couldn't think of a real example could you? Everything offensive has already been removed from public buildings. It was feasable.
They took the 10 Commandments off of and out of the US Supreme Court building? I'm sorry, I must not have gotten that memo.

What are you talking about? Since when did people have a right to place religious monuments in public owned buildings? Never, that's when.
When did they not have a right to place religious monuments in public owned building as long as they are not funded by public monies? If I were to buy a park bench and put a religious inscription on it and donate it to my local city park, they'd certainly place it for me. This is about the free exercise of an individual's religion. The Constitution never intended that the government should abolish all religious expression in public places, but rather it protected that right of all citizens. The establishment clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's all it says...To me, it certainly does not say that we should remove any form of religious expression in public places, except when government funds are put towards that expression. Doing so in instances where said monuments were funded privately and given to a public institution would mean that the private individual's right to symbolic religious expression was violated.

I'm sure a lot of people (Christians) agree with you, the US government doesn't seem to be one of them though. Remember that big case last year (note: not 23 years ago) concerning the placement of the 10 commandments at a courthouse? A panel ruled that it "violated the U.S. Constitution's principle of separation of religion and government." and had it removed. The end. :p
The issue you bring up is an issue where public funds were used to purchase a "religious" monument, not vice versa.

The US government is not at issue here. What IS at issue is the extreme amount of power the judiciary has when they exercise judicial review. You have 7 unelected people dictating law to the rest of the country. That needs to be fixed.

That is one of the reasons why I am voting for Bush this year. If he wins, this can be fixed. We need accountable justices who are making decisions impartially, not according to their own personal judgement.

We need accountable justices who are making decisions impartially, not according to their own personal judgement.


It is ironic you said that considering the judge refused to remove the commandments after being ordered to, based on his personal beliefs.

It is ironic you said that considering the judge refused to remove the commandments after being ordered to, based on his personal beliefs.

Said judge suffered the consequences and was removed from office. Not so ironic.

Yeah, but of course that District Judge was subsequently and swiftly removed from his duties and the mandate to remove the 10 Commandments was carried out.

So yeah exerting your own opinions and beliefs in that capacity will "get you gone" quite expediently in this country...at least for now.

ToB is shedding light on the one of the biggest yet most undebated topics (in the mainstream) of this Presidential Election which is Supreme Court Justice appointments. That aspect of the election will indeed impact all our lives directly.

It is an agnostic philosophy which is just as religious as an atheist ideology. Again, no. Agnostic philosophy would require people to talk about the uncertainty of the existance of god.

Imagine if i just met you, and you talked to me for a while and you didn't bring up religion - are you then agnostic? According to your example you are promoting the agnostic agenda. Not bringing up religion is just that, it's not making any claims as to whether or not god exists and is not promoting any philosophy.

Since you disagree though - in your opinion, what would the neutral stance be then?
They took the 10 Commandments off of and out of the US Supreme Court building? I'm sorry, I must not have gotten that memo.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/story.monument.removed.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/
more examples : http://www.ffrf.org/legal/legal4.php#monuments
When did they not have a right to place religious monuments in public owned building as long as they are not funded by public monies?
Since forever. Try it and get back to me. Whether or not you offer to pay for it yourself, you are still taking up publicly owned space paid for with public funds to promote your religious agenda.

If I were to buy a park bench and put a religious inscription on it and donate it to my local city park, they'd certainly place it for me.
Whether or not they might let a religious inscription on something as innocent as a park bench I wouldn't be surprised, but that's a far cry from a ten commandments monument or a nativity scene. Here's some legal ownage:

http://www.ffrf.org/legal/legal2.php
http://www.ffrf.org/legal/legal4.php
This is about the free exercise of an individual's religion. The Constitution never intended that the government should abolish all religious expression in public places, but rather it protected that right of all citizens. The establishment clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's all it says...To me, it certainly does not say that we should remove any form of religious expression in public places, except when government funds are put towards that expression. Doing so in instances where said monuments were funded privately and given to a public institution would mean that the private individual's right to symbolic religious expression was violated.
The only case where you can legally place your own religion symbols on publicly owned land is when it has been decided that by the government that equal access will be given to all forms of expression on that property. As you can imagine, this doesn't happen often (ever). This is why whenever someone complains, they take it down.
The issue you bring up is an issue where public funds were used to purchase a "religious" monument, not vice versa. No actually that was you, i never mentioned that once. :p

Again, no. Agnostic philosophy would require people to talk about the uncertainty of the existance of god.

Imagine if i just met you, and you talked to me for a while and you didn't bring up religion - are you then agnostic? According to your example you are promoting the agnostic agenda. Not bringing up religion is just that, it's not making any claims as to whether or not god exists and is not promoting any philosophy.

Since you disagree though - in your opinion, what would the neutral stance be then?

The Establishment Clause was written in a way that is to protect the citizens of the USA from having a national church imposed on them, and conversely, from having their right to assemble and practice their personal religion infringed upon. It means freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. I hold that this clause has been vastly misinterpreted by activist justices throughout the years.

"I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in
the government of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward,
1824.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/story.monument.removed.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/
more examples : http://www.ffrf.org/legal/legal4.php#monuments

That's not the US Supreme Court. Try again.

Since forever. Try it and get back to me. Whether or not you offer to pay for it yourself, you are still taking up publicly owned space paid for with public funds to promote your religious agenda.

Whether or not they might let a religious inscription on something as innocent as a park bench I wouldn't be surprised, but that's a far cry from a ten commandments monument or a nativity scene. Here's some legal ownage:

http://www.ffrf.org/legal/legal2.php
http://www.ffrf.org/legal/legal4.php

It's the exact same thing. Public space with a private monument. I don't see how it's different.

Furthermore, it is a fallacy to quote such an atheistic organization such as the FFRF. This goes back to the original point I had made of an atheistic group religiously pursuing removal of other religious artifacts and beliefs that contradict their own.

No actually that was you, i never mentioned that once. :p
Actually, you've brought it up twice now. Once in your original rebuttal, and now when you posted the pictures of the movers removing the monument.

It is an agnostic philosophy which is just as religious as an atheist ideology.
Right, I know this isn't the heart of the debate, but I feel this needs to be cleared up.

Atheism is NOT a religion. It's a name people use for someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a God. Athiests do not celebrate this belief... they don't have a special time they set aside to get together and not believe in God... They don't affirm their non-beliefs with each other. They don't sing really rubbish songs about their lack of belief. There are no buildings dedicated to the disbelief in God. There are no rules surrounding how one should disbelieve, nor is there an organisation of Atheists one can go to when one feels in the grip of a Crisis of Disbelief...

Am I getting through to you?

Lemme put it this way - I don't believe that the world was created by a 200 metre long flying Dachshund named Colin. Neither do you. See? We don't believe the same thing. Does that make us a religion? Or would we need to get lots of other people who share our incredulence at this Omnipotent, Giant, Airborne Canine?

Atheism is NOT a religion, it's the marked LACK of one.

As for Agnosticism, that's a red herring in this context too. Agnostics don't know what to believe, but are open to suggestions. That's got fuck all to do with removing religious statuary from public buildings (whatever their historical context).

By getting rid of things like the Ten Commandments, you're making a statement that the institution is not Irreligious or Irreverent, you're just proclaiming that the practices within that building are solidly Areligious. It's a question of capacity... The judge who sentences me might be a card carrying Satanist for all I care - as long as (s)he's not wearing that hat at the time. I want to be tried by a court of LAW, not one of religion. Removing any religious artefacts from the premises is a symbol - nothing more - that the courts priority is THE LAW, regardless of the personal beliefs of the practitioners.

Same thing for Government. Separation of Church and State and all that.

The Establishment Clause was written in a way that is to protect the citizens of the USA from having a national church imposed on them, and conversely, from having their right to assemble and practice their personal religion infringed upon. It means freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. I hold that this clause has been vastly misinterpreted by activist justices throughout the years.
Well luckily for everyone, it's their interperetation that matters and not yours. That's not the US Supreme Court. Try again. I was skimming your post and I missed your mention of supreme court, I just assumed you were replying to the same case I was referring to, the very public case last year, and they removed it. They are being legally removed one by one. The supreme court is working towards a ruling regarding religious texts in public buildings, and if it's anything like their recent rulings, and the ruling banning 10 commandments in classrooms, I think it will not go favorably for you.
Furthermore, it is a fallacy to quote such an atheistic organization such as the FFRF. This goes back to the original point I had made of an atheistic group religiously pursuing removal of other religious artifacts and beliefs that contradict their own. Legal victories are still legal victories regardless of what the groups agenda might be. Your dislike of the organization doesn't make their victories any less valid.
Actually, you've brought it up twice now. Once in your original rebuttal, and now when you posted the pictures of the movers removing the monument.
I can't find where I said that. and as for the picture posted above, Roy Moore's monument was privately funded, and they still deemed it a violation and ordered it removed. Am i crazy or does that not completely disprove your theory?

Well luckily for everyone, it's their interperetation that matters and not yours.
The problem with your argument is that you are endorsing the extreme power that the judiciary has over our legislative process. You would rather have an unelected, unaccountable judge sitting in his robes behind a bench making law than and overturning legislation that it took the legislature years to pass. Did you know that the constitution does NOT give any specific judicial review provisions to the judiciary? This was a power that the judiciary gave to itself, completely outside the realm of responsibility. Now, we have justices who are interpreting the Constitution and dictating law to the rest of the country according to their activist viewpoints. The problem with this is that most justices are unelected and are NOT accountable to the people that they "govern". The judiciary is there to judge the CONTENT of law, not the INTENT of the Constitution.

Legal victories are still legal victories regardless of what the groups agenda might be. Your dislike of the organization doesn't make their victories any less valid.
That is completely untrue. The point that I made was that you have the judiciary siding with one organization and their beliefs over another organization and their beliefs. You have one group's religious views trumping another's. And to Head, if you don't believe that Atheists can be "religious", go to the FFRF's website, read it, and tell me that these people are not zealous about their cause. Any time someone is "zealous" about a cause or their beliefs, they are considered "religious". This could be baseball, football, Christianity, or Atheism.

I can't find where I said that. and as for the picture posted above, Roy Moore's monument was privately funded, and they still deemed it a violation and ordered it removed. Am i crazy or does that not completely disprove your theory?

The saving grace of our judicial system is that these circuit courts and lower federal appellate courts are NOT the final voice of reason. There is an appeals process, which theoretically negates the activism we face in the lower courts.

If Bush is elected, you will see less of these activist federal justices, but if Kerry is elected, you can only expect to see further proliferation of this bastardization of our legal system.

And to Head, if you don't believe that Atheists can be "religious", go to the FFRF's website, read it, and tell me that these people are not zealous about their cause. Any time someone is "zealous" about a cause or their beliefs, they are considered "religious". This could be baseball, football, Christianity, or Atheism.

Then it isn't Atheism that they're zealous about. Their agenda may be something that springs from their lack of belief in a God, but it isn't the belief itself.

See, I'm an Atheist, cos that's how people describe my belief structure... but I don't feel the need to evangelise, convert people, preach or what have you. That would require a belief in something (usually, that's just that your position is right and everyone else's is wrong)... And I only know what I DON'T believe in. These FFRF people you're on about seem to have a different urge. That's their problem.

Zealotry doesn't equal religion either. Being driven about something is totally different from being religious. Does that mean that someone who really, really loves fishing and nothing else is religious? All these assholes that say "Football is my religion" really don't know the meaning of the word. I carry out my work with zeal, for example... but it sure as fuck isn't a religion.

Religion is the organised or institutionalised belief in a God or Gods and the preachings of that God. It's not wider than that... it doesn't encompass opinions individuals might have.

Sorry to keep bashing on about this, but it's an important distinction.

Then it isn't Atheism that they're zealous about. Their agenda may be something that springs from their lack of belief in a God, but it isn't the belief itself.

See, I'm an Atheist, cos that's how people describe my belief structure... but I don't feel the need to evangelise, convert people, preach or what have you. That would require a belief in something (usually, that's just that your position is right and everyone else's is wrong)... And I only know what I DON'T believe in. These FFRF people you're on about seem to have a different urge. That's their problem.

Zealotry doesn't equal religion either. Being driven about something is totally different from being religious. Does that mean that someone who really, really loves fishing and nothing else is religious? All these assholes that say "Football is my religion" really don't know the meaning of the word. I carry out my work with zeal, for example... but it sure as fuck isn't a religion.

Religion is the organised or institutionalised belief in a God or Gods and the preachings of that God. It's not wider than that... it doesn't encompass opionions individuals might have.

Sorry to keep bashing on about this, but it's an important distinction.

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


YOU as a personal Atheist may not see the need to evangelize your beliefs, much in the same way that as a Christian, I do not proselytize on behalf of Christianity. The FFRF, however, can certainly be classified as a "religious organization" according to the literal definition of the word.

Furthermore, it is a fallacy to quote such an atheistic organization such as the FFRF. This goes back to the original point I had made of an atheistic group religiously pursuing removal of other religious artifacts and beliefs that contradict their own.


Thou shalt not commit a Circumstantial Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html) when attempting to talk about logical fallacies.

Thou shalt not commit a Circumstantial Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html) when attempting to talk about logical fallacies.

You are just saying that because Angie is your "muse". ;)

The problem with your argument is that you are endorsing the extreme power that the judiciary has over our legislative process. You would rather have an unelected, unaccountable judge sitting in his robes behind a bench making law than and overturning legislation that it took the legislature years to pass. Did you know that the constitution does NOT give any specific judicial review provisions to the judiciary? This was a power that the judiciary gave to itself, completely outside the realm of responsibility. Now, we have justices who are interpreting the Constitution and dictating law to the rest of the country according to their activist viewpoints. The problem with this is that most justices are unelected and are NOT accountable to the people that they "govern". The judiciary is there to judge the CONTENT of law, not the INTENT of the Constitution.
Sorry, I don't feel like following you on another subject change. And to Head, if you don't believe that Atheists can be "religious", go to the FFRF's website, read it, and tell me that these people are not zealous about their cause. Any time someone is "zealous" about a cause or their beliefs, they are considered "religious". This could be baseball, football, Christianity, or Atheism.
re·li·gious (adj.)

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

As you said, the third meaning can be applied to absolutely anything. Do you think that is what they are talking about when they speak of the separation of religion and state? Of course not. Obviously they use the word with it's primary meaning in mind. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

example: Bob was fired from his teaching position for sharpening his pencils "religiously". Once a day is enough Bob, you know we can't have religion in a school.

The saving grace of our judicial system is that these circuit courts and lower federal appellate courts are NOT the final voice of reason. There is an appeals process, which theoretically negates the activism we face in the lower courts.

If Bush is elected, you will see less of these activist federal justices, but if Kerry is elected, you can only expect to see further proliferation of this bastardization of our legal system. ?

Hate to break it to you, but Bush was elected four years ago.

"further proliferation"? Under who's watch do you think this happened? Bush has had four years to fix this problem and as you just said above, it's gotten worse. Yet rather than take a chance on a new person, you believe the one who allowed it to worsen will somehow make things better? Don't you think your logic is slightly backwards?

Sorry, I don't feel like following you on another subject change.
Haven't we been talking about the legal system and judiciary this entire time? You choose to ignore my comments based on this topic of conversation yet argue against them later in your post. Read back up through our conversation, and you will see that this is precisely the case. I will post my previous comment here for you to read and respond to again.

"The problem with your argument is that you are endorsing the extreme power that the judiciary has over our legislative process. You would rather have an unelected, unaccountable judge sitting in his robes behind a bench making law than and overturning legislation that it took the legislature years to pass. Did you know that the constitution does NOT give any specific judicial review provisions to the judiciary? This was a power that the judiciary gave to itself, completely outside the realm of responsibility. Now, we have justices who are interpreting the Constitution and dictating law to the rest of the country according to their activist viewpoints. The problem with this is that most justices are unelected and are NOT accountable to the people that they "govern". The judiciary is there to judge the CONTENT of law, not the INTENT of the Constitution."

re·li·gious (adj.)

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

As you said, the third meaning can be applied to absolutely anything. Do you think that is what they are talking about when they speak of the separation of religion and state? Of course not. Obviously they use the word with it's primary meaning in mind. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

example: Bob was fired from his teaching position for sharpening his pencils "religiously". Once a day is enough Bob, you know we can't have religion in a school.

?

“If I could have entertained the slighted apprehension that the Constitution framed in the Convention where I had the honor to preside might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.” -- George Washington

When the First Amendment rights of an "ecclesiastical society" are being persecuted by a group of people who believe in something different (God doesn't exist), then that is precisely what I am speaking of.

Bob sharpening his pencils isn't a problem because he isn't forcing other people to sharpen their pencils with him religiously. Bob is exercising his First Amemdment rights to practice his ritualistic pencil sharpening.

Hate to break it to you, but Bush was elected four years ago.

"further proliferation"? Under who's watch do you think this happened? Bush has had four years to fix this problem and as you just said above, it's gotten worse. Yet rather than take a chance on a new person, you believe the one who allowed it to worsen will somehow make things better? Don't you think your logic is slightly backwards?
Let's let the numbers speak for themselves: during President Bush's first two years in office, only 53% of appeals court nominees were confirmed compared to a rate of over 90% during the same period for the last 3 Presidencies. This happened in the Senate in which John Kerry and John Edwards were both members. Go figure.

...
I've said just about everything I have to say on this. This isn't going anywhere because I'm talking about what is or is not allowed, and you keep falling into why it should be allowed and what is wrong with the system that prevents it from being allowed. There is no way to argue with that, now is there?

I've said just about everything I have to say on this. This isn't going anywhere because I'm talking about what is or is not allowed, and you keep falling into why it should be allowed and what is wrong with the system that prevents it from being allowed. There is no way to argue with that, now is there?

If you're not willing to look at the question of what power judges should have there is little point in discussing how they excercise said power.

If you're not willing to look at the question of what power judges should have there is little point in discussing how they excercise said power.

Furthermore, if you do not discuss the problem, you can never be part of the solution.

Yes, there have been legal precedents set that enforce this seperation of church and state that go far beyond what the Constitution intended, but that doesn't make those decisions right.

Yes, there have been legal precedents set that enforce this seperation of church and state that go far beyond what the Constitution intended, but that doesn't make those decisions right.


And on the other side of the coin, the Constitution says that blacks are not a whole person in terms of representation, the Constitution is not always right..

And on the other side of the coin, the Constitution says that blacks are not a whole person in terms of representation, the Constitution is not always right..

It SAID that at one point, but not after the 14th and 15th amendments were enacted. This was changed by LEGISLATIVE means, not judicial means.

Debate is healthy in society. At the same time, however, the Ten-commandments aren't hurting anything. If displaying the Ten commandments on the supreme court are deemed to interfere with the minority view, is it right to spend the majority's taxpayer money to remove them? I would agree with ToB's arguement that it is NOT right to do so.

We've got Themes on display at judicial buildings all around the country. Just like the ten commandments, all of these are art: humanities... works to represent to human reasoning. Perhaps we should add Disturbed's logo somewhere so more religions are recognized? Perhaps not. Life goes on.

But, if someone somewhere decrees the removal of the 10 commandments from the U.S supreme court building (remember, they'd have to erect ugly scaffolding / cranes to remove it... and I'm reminded of the imagery of the ancient Bhuddist statue being blown to bits in Afganistan during Taliban-rule), that would further inflame this ongoing, neverending arguement that society has turned it's back on God... And we'd be getting a constant earful about America's sin. While this is going on, people would pay less attention to more pressing matters of the day.

So for the good of society as a whole, I say let them stay. We've got more important things to worry about. Move on. No one's going to die because they are on display.

Now, my view about the Alabama judge and the removal of that monument: that judge was trying to make himself a martyr (for good or ill) and needed to fuel this debate. So he went against the rules at the time and displayed them in a prominent (some would say inappropriate) place on court's public space. When they were removed, he went on tv making statements about how America and both political parties turned away from God.

And now we've got the ten commandments under review by the U.S. supreme court again. It comes full circle. Neither side will be completely satisfied. Debate continues. More judicial review, more debate, etc, etc...

Just because something exists or just because it is currently happening does not make it right. A judge's job is not to legislate but to interpret law. However, we have seen an increasing trend in the United States toward activist judges who try to legislate rather than interpret existing law. To myself and many others, this is a clear violation of the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. It takes away the voice of the people in a growing and alarming way. And, as you guys have unfortunately exemplified, you don't care. If nobody cares, it's never going to change.

Now back to the Ten Commandments issue itself

Themis represents law and order--she is not there as a symbol of the goddess Themis, nor is the statue there in any kind of religious context. The religions today which follow the Greek and Roman pantheons are reconstructions that do not predate the statue's use. When it was put in place, no one was citing Themis as a deity, but rather Themis as a symbol.
A deity is a deity is a deity. And I'm curious: what would give the statue a "religious context"? You say it's not there in any religious context, so what would indicate a religious context?

The mural in the Supreme Court building is similar. It portrays the evolution of law, which rightly includes both Mohammad and the 10 Commandments.
Okay, so you're agreeing that it doesn't violate rights? Or are you suggesting that it does?

The people who are screaming that the 10 Commandments should be displayed would probably flinch if it was brought up that we should also decorate with text out of the Koran or--even more severely--the Rede of the Wiccae, a prayer to Tyr or Óðinn, or an equivalent.

No, not really. I wouldn't hesitate to display these things if they were a part of our national history. But they're not a part of the evolution of our law, so their display would be for purely religious reasons, violating the "separation of church and state" :rolleyes:

I'm not saying whether or not they need to be displayed. I am not chomping at the bit to see the Ten Commandments and whatever else displayed in the Supreme Court. What we are examining here is whether it is lawful to do so. And I think, in this instance, it is. And from what I understand, you agree.

<3 Mary

No, not really. I wouldn't hesitate to display these things if they were a part of our national history. But they're not a part of the evolution of our law, so their display would be for purely religious reasons, violating the "separation of church and state" :rolleyes:

I'm not saying whether or not they need to be displayed. I am not chomping at the bit to see the Ten Commandments and whatever else displayed in the Supreme Court. What we are examining here is whether it is lawful to do so. And I think, in this instance, it is. And from what I understand, you agree.

<3 Mary


Yes, Christianity was the religion of those who founded this country, but times are changing, and if we are going to fight to have the 10 Commandments removed, why not just put the moral codes of all religions up, then we can leave them there? Because then there would be no more space left in the Court House. If the 10 Commandments were displayed at a public park, or at a fair grounds, which are both Public Places, that is a different story because it is not directly linked to the State; however, when displayed at a place representative of the Goverment (such as the Court House), then it becomes a different matter, because then one who is not a follower of the Abrahamic traditions, might feel offended thinking that this Court House is already against them because they do not follow the same faith.

And the deal with Themis...Yes, there are many people within the Hellenistic Pagan paths who probably follow her; however, the Majority of the public is not even aware that such a religion (not Paganism, I mean the different traditions of it) exists, and so in the end, what harm does it do? Now, if someone is Aethiest and complaining, I do have a problem with that, because you choose not to believe in a higher being, and so if people feel safer in life knowing that their God or Goddess is with them, then fine, it brings the peace.

I don't want to feel like I was contradicting myself on that last statement about Aethiesm, because I probably was, but if we can't please them all, then lets just make it neutral, and be move them to another location. Then we hurt no one, the Christains aren't hurt, because they aren't in the Court house, but they are somewhere else (say, at the enterance to the Court House property [If that is even possible]), and the people who are not Christian aren't hurt either because they are gone.

I guess I made no sense there, so I'll stop rambling :).

Yes, Christianity was the religion of those who founded this country, but times are changing, and if we are going to fight to have the 10 Commandments removed, why not just put the moral codes of all religions up, then we can leave them there?

I agree. Put up all or none. Do not promote or show strictly one religion. If you're gonna show one- show them all. And if you cant compromise on that- then show none.

This country was NOT foundend on Christianity. None of the foundnig fathers were christians, they were deists. Also, the First Amendment was created to protect the government from enroachment by religion, not the other way around.

This country was NOT foundend on Christianity. None of the foundnig fathers were christians, they were deists. Also, the First Amendment was created to protect the government from enroachment by religion, not the other way around.
Here, since you haven't actually READ the First Amendment.

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.

Here, since you haven't actually READ the First Amendment.


The establisment clause was writen to protect people from religious persectution, because in Europe, there were countries where the leader was more loyal to the church than to their subjects. The founding fathers wanted to keep religion out of government to prevent something like that from happening in america.

The establisment clause was writen to protect people from religious persectution, because in Europe, there were countries where the leader was more loyal to the church than to their subjects. The founding fathers wanted to keep religion out of government to prevent something like that from happening in america.

That seems like a weird system...protect the government from religon, but not the other way around. But I think that the courts shouldn't screw with it. It seems like one of those things that the establishment posting them chooses to do or not do. That still would fall under freedom of speech, I would think. So we need to accept everything being put up, or nothing at all.

The U.S. Supreme Court is to rule on government public display of the Commandments today.

I belive they'll rule in favor of such displays by a 8-1 or 7-2 decision, because it will not interfere with any judicial or state legislature proceedings. We'll see though.

Edit: Ruling is 5-4 against the 10 Commandments in Judicial Buildings. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_ten_commandments

I belive they'll rule in favor of such displays by a 8-1 or 7-2 decision, because it will not interfere with any judicial or state legislature proceedings. We'll see though.

Looks like your prediction was wrong.

Supreme Court bars Ten Commandments at courthouses
A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

The court's decision was 5-4, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor casting the swing vote.

The decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays -- like their own courtroom frieze -- would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html

I think they got this one wrong. Separation of church and state does not mean an absence of religious items from view. the 10 commandments are good laws to live by, and represent history, and are not an in-your-face attmept at promoting christianity and jewish religion.

In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

For now.....What's next?...prohibitng the wearing of crosses/jewish/any religious paraphrenalia from any court official or lawyer???

What seems to get me is that people who believe in God seem to be debating to oppose God in the sake of freedom and rights for those who do not believe in God. In doing so, it only weakens your belief while strengthening theirs.

Ask yourself. Would they do that for me?

One can be to kind until it comes back to bite them in the ass.

I STRONGLY feel that the 10 commandments should be left as they are. That's not to say that everyone has to belive what they stand for, but our country was built on the FREEDOM of religion and the FREEDOM to express it. The founding fathers of this country were Christian, and they clearly set up the government according to their views. Now if someone doesn't like that fact, then maybe they should go start their own country elsewhere.

I am Christian, so I may be slightly bias. However, I wouldn't dare say that an Islamic church somewhere in America should not be here. They have every right to express their views, and I respect that. That is (or sadly was) the wonderful thing about America. People have the freedom to have their own beliefs and to display them publically. In fact, that is one of the main reasons this country was established: because of the need for religious freedom.

Even if everything I already mentioned was irrelevant, here's one reason why taking away the 10 commandments is just plain stupid. They're not some way out there religious commandments, they're plain and simple common sense facts, and most are even supported by US law. Ex: "Thou shalt not commit murder!" Is it just me or is that just common sense? Now who in their right mind is so desperate that they need simple laws such as these taken out of the court?

There is so much more I have to say on this topic, but I think I'll just shut my big mouth before it gets me in trouble. The bottom line is that removing the Commandments is a violation of The Bill of Rights. If the courts are allowed to tweak our rights in a matter such as this, it will only give them the power to do so in upcoming cases.

Sorry if I come off strong, I'm just very opinionated on this topic. Again, I realize that this is my opinion, and I respect all of those who do not agree with my viewpoint. Thanks for reading all this if you got this far! ;)

Looks like your prediction was wrong.
Actually, I was 1/2 right with the outcome: They allowed 10 commandments on state capital grounds (and yeah. I was wrong on the vote tallies for both). Source. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.ten.commandments/index.html)

Those disappointed with the KY outcome do have a bit of silver lining. It's time to put 10 commandment monuments on the 49 other state capital grounds.

None of the foundnig fathers were christians, they were deists.
I know this is from November, but crack a history book, bud.
Franklin & Jefferson were deists. However, Jefferson said himself that he was a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. Samuel Adams was in fact a Christian. John Adams was a Unitarian, which means he could have been a Christian, but not a trinitarian. Alexander Hamilton was Epsicopalian, and last time I checked, that was a Christian religion.
I don't know about the rest.
This country was NOT foundend on Christianity.

Now, to say that the United States was not founded on Christianity is absurd, regardless of whether you are Christian or not. I am not saying it was solely founded on any religion, but it certainly has great influences.
John Adams himself said that this country was founded on the general principles of Christianity
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

Also, the First Amendment was created to protect the government from enroachment by religion, not the other way around.
The First Amendment was to keep Government from establishing a National Denomination, or prohibiting religion, not protect it from religion entirely.

Now, to say that the United States was not founded on Christianity is absurd, regardless of whether you are Christian or not. I am not saying it was solely founded on any religion, but it certainly has great influences.
John Adams himself said that this country was founded on the general principles of Christianity


Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, signed unanimously into law and support by President John Adams, reads as follows:


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 Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.


Emphasis mine.


Let's check some other things out.



However, Jefferson said himself that he was a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper , 10 Feb 1814

"I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

my cousin is involved in one of the cases about the 10 commandments being in front of court houses. I'm not sure what about tho.