WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Monday limited governments' ability to display the Ten Commandments on public property. The court said local officials must remain neutral toward religion and that such displays will be permitted only if the setting's overall message is secular.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-27-scotus-commandments_x.htm

Its a good ruling - those Christian wacko's think they own this country.

Due to the basis of individual consideration, I would not count on seeing the commandments on many government sites.

Religious bullcrap shouldn't be allowed on any government property. The supreme court blew this one big time.

Now the fundy whack-jobs want to put a religious monument on every piece of government property.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701583.html

Originally posted by DrewM
Its a good ruling - those Christian wacko's think they own this country.

ya, what are they thinking, the country belongs to radical secularists

Originally posted by Travh20
ya, what are they thinking, the country belongs to radical secularists
Take out the "radical" and you're right? The evidence? The Constitution.

the constitution makes a great shield to mask the anti relgious agenda the radical secularists have. Many people who claim to be strict constituionalists and think a statue in a building is the first step to voiding the fist ammendment have no problem with removing the second ammendment complelty, or abolishing the electoral college. (I know that some of the liberals on this board are gun rights advocates too so dont waste our time telling us your love for guns).

what I am trying to say is, after looking through the religion forums, and seeing the sheer foaming at the mouth, spit flying hatred of religion and christianity in particular, and seeing those same people cliaming that somehow they simply want to abolish all signs of christianity on public building as some sort of plain old constitutional interpretation is a joke. The people behind this clearly have an anti religion agenda. Just go over to the religion forum and take a peek.

Originally posted by Travh20
what I am trying to say is, after looking through the religion forums, and seeing the sheer foaming at the mouth, spit flying hatred of religion and christianity in particular, and seeing those same people cliaming that somehow they simply want to abolish all signs of christianity on public building as some sort of plain old constitutional interpretation is a joke. The people behind this clearly have an anti religion agenda. Just go over to the religion forum and take a peek. The coin has two sides. While there are those who use the Constitution to mask their anti-religious agenda, there are also those who use it to mask their PRO-religious, and often pro-Christian, agenda. But what's important is that we don't yield to such groups at the expense of the Constitution.

Originally posted by Travh20
ya, what are they thinking, the country belongs to radical secularists

The 10 commandments is an overtly christian text. It has no place in a tax payer funded building.

If the actual item displayed has historical significance (not a significance of content) - then I don't have a problem with it on that basis - although a museum would be a better place.

The radical christians do feel that they have an obligation to push religion into the core of society as much as possible. In this essence they are not much different to the clerics in Iran. Different religion - same bullshit, the only difference is Iran doesn't have a constitution that bans such crapola.

Keep religion in church where it belongs & not in the face of people that don't buy into it, don't appreciate it & have no interest in seeing their tax dollars fund any of it.

Drew, the 10 commandement is not overtly christian. In case you didnt know, the ten commandments were around long before christ. The ten commandments themselves do not mention christ in any way. there are 3 major religions that recognize the ten commandments. One of them happens to be christianity, and that seems to be the real beef here. we are told that we dont live in a christian nation, yet whenver the 10 commandments are placed anywhere everyone assumes it is somehow in honor of jesus.

In response to your "keep it out of my face" statement: why is it that any mention of religion is outrageous and unaceptable, but we can be bombarded wih sex day in and day out and the answer is always " dont watch it if you dont like it." even though to get away from it you would have to seal yourself in a vault. I get tired of all the people who cry about religion being forced down their throat brushing off the feelings of others who complain about things they dont like or want constantly intruding in their lives. When was the last time religion was forced down our thrat drew? give us an example. Did a big cross appear on your TV screen during dinner? were you watching TV with your kids and see jesus on the screen?

Between their Kentucky rulings and the Texas ruling I'm afraid they created enough wiggle-room that we haven't seen the last of 10 Commandments in public buildings.

thats true, why cant they just say yes or no, why do they have to say yes here, no there?

In response to your "keep it out of my face" statement: why is it that any mention of religion is outrageous and unaceptable, but we can be bombarded wih sex day in and day out and the answer is always " dont watch it if you dont like it."
You have to pay taxes, you don't have to pay for television.

so you think none fo our tax dollars go to TV or movies?

so you think none fo our tax dollars go to TV or movies?
What the hell is on public television?

your right, unless we pay for it we have no right to complain about it :rolleyes:

your right, unless we pay for it we have no right to complain about it
It's not your problem and it doesn't affect you.
There's this whole thing we call "private property".

Originally posted by Travh20
Drew, the 10 commandement is not overtly christian. In case you didnt know, the ten commandments were around long before christ. The ten commandments themselves do not mention christ in any way. there are 3 major religions that recognize the ten commandments. One of them happens to be christianity, and that seems to be the real beef here. we are told that we dont live in a christian nation, yet whenver the 10 commandments are placed anywhere everyone assumes it is somehow in honor of jesus.

In response to your "keep it out of my face" statement: why is it that any mention of religion is outrageous and unaceptable, but we can be bombarded wih sex day in and day out and the answer is always " dont watch it if you dont like it." even though to get away from it you would have to seal yourself in a vault. I get tired of all the people who cry about religion being forced down their throat brushing off the feelings of others who complain about things they dont like or want constantly intruding in their lives. When was the last time religion was forced down our thrat drew? give us an example. Did a big cross appear on your TV screen during dinner? were you watching TV with your kids and see jesus on the screen?

Well it's the Christians that seem to think that breaking the law is justified when it comes to the 10 commandments in government buildings (bunch of freaks). Regardless - doesn't matter what religion - the 10 commandments does not belong in a government building - end of story.

I didn't say any mention of religion is outrageous - I said using tax payer money to put in a government building is wrong - that is what i mean when I say keep it out of my face.

Your logic is flawed - the items you feel are pushed in your face are funded by hollywood et al - not by my tax dollars.

Religious groups have every right to their religion, every right to buy billboards, TV ads and so forth listing the 10 commandments - and I have every right to turn off the TV - but they have absolutely no right to export their beleifs into government space. It doesn't belong there - this is not a theocracy - it's a secular form of government (we can thank God for that !). If I go to the local court house I do not want to see the 10 commandments in a display case, unless the document itself is a historical document relevant to the city.

I am glad you know what does and doesnt affect me. putthe book down for a few minutes bliblob, take a look around

Originally posted by DrewM
Well it's the Christians that seem to think that breaking the law is justified when it comes to the 10 commandments in government buildings (bunch of freaks). Regardless - doesn't matter what religion - the 10 commandments does not belong in a government building - end of story.

I didn't say any mention of religion is outrageous - I said using tax payer money to put in a government building is wrong - that is what i mean when I say keep it out of my face.

Your logic is flawed - the items you feel are pushed in your face are funded by hollywood et al - not by my tax dollars.

Religious groups have every right to their religion, every right to buy billboards, TV ads and so forth listing the 10 commandments - and I have every right to turn off the TV - but they have absolutely no right to export their beleifs into government space. It doesn't belong there - this is not a theocracy - it's a secular form of government (we can thank God for that !). If I go to the local court house I do not want to see the 10 commandments in a display case, unless the document itself is a historical document relevant to the city.

congress shall make no law establishing a religion. ten commandments in a judicial branch building does not establish" A" religion. it is relgious in nature, but does not establish a certain religion. you may have a better argument if it were a cross, but the ten commandments themselves establish no religion. you have to interpret it pretty broadly to think a stone statue of the ten commandments is congress teling us all we have to worship christ.

aside from the fact you think the constitution says statues should not be allowed, what hard does it do you to have it there? how is the world better without it?

If it is not religious in nature - why would you care?

The only reason you care about it is because you have a religious agenda.

If it wasn't religious in nature why do all the christian crazies come pouring out the woodwork travel across the country & camp out when these issues arise.

Don't try to make a case that the issue is not religious - it clearly is.

Religion is fine but keep it to yourself. Any statues of religious nature on government property must & will be destroyed.

More cases essentially struck down today
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062800602.html

Bravo !!

Trav - note the Minster in the photo. Of course he is not there on any religious basis - he's just there for historical purposes :rolleyes:

I am not even religious. I see it as just another attempt to fundamentally change the country. I am a conservative, and want to conserve what we have. The ten commandments have been in courthouses since the begining, unless you argue that fair and just rulings cant be made if that statue is in there, what the hell harm does it do you? THere are lots of things the government pays for that I dont like. I am sure if we dug deep enough we could interpret the constituion to justify our position. Seriously, how do you go from "congress shall make no law establishing a religion" to saying a statue of the ten commandments must be destroyed?

FWIW - I think the 10 commandments is meaningless. It just makes certain people "feel" good. That's all.

What percentage of so-called "Christians", or should I be more general and say "theists", support the war in Iraq and George Bush? 60%? 80%? Higher?

One of the 10 commandments (not a suggestion or a general recommendation, but an actual commandment from God) says THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Bullshit! Rubbish! If you really believed that your creator, the one who set all of known existence in motion, sent Moses down with 2 tablets inscribed with 10 strict orders for you to follow, you would have no choice but to obey this almighty presence and turn the other cheek even if it meant your own demise (I suppose this would score you a few extra brownie points with the "big guy") out of love and gratitude for what a wondrous, generous, and amazing this all powerful being has done for you and will do for you for following his rules for all eternity...


But that's not the way things work. And everybody knows it. Why try this stupid attempt to fool ourselves. To make ourselves feel holy and clean despite the fact that we are all mere mortals. To eliminate reason and truth for pure fantasy. Stupid is as stupid does.

Originally posted by Travh20
I am not even religious. I see it as just another attempt to fundamentally change the country. I am a conservative, and want to conserve what we have. The ten commandments have been in courthouses since the begining, unless you argue that fair and just rulings cant be made if that statue is in there, what the hell harm does it do you? THere are lots of things the government pays for that I dont like. I am sure if we dug deep enough we could interpret the constituion to justify our position. Seriously, how do you go from "congress shall make no law establishing a religion" to saying a statue of the ten commandments must be destroyed?

The attempt to fundamentally change the country you should be concerned about is the right wing evangelicals trying to push a religious agenda. These people are complete intolerant whack jobs. The 1950's was too liberal for them.

If you allow the 10 commandments - then you have to allow statues with Koran verses, the moonies, the JW's and even the satanists to have their symbols up also.

Once I see the christian crazies camping out & make a huge deal out it - then it's obvious that whatever baloney they are going nuts about must be stopped. To many people the fact that they believe it's God's will to have these statues in place just makes it more the reason to remove this religious influence from state property.

Luckily the law protects us from this.

tapeworm , we also now that this isnt about the constitution, its about ahtred of religion. we allknow, lets not beat around the bush here

Stupid is as stupid does..THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Most of these people could give a fuck about the constitution. They would change it at will to fit their own beliefs, fears, ignorance - to hell with anything or anyone else. IT MOST CERTIANLY IS about the constitution.

Exactly - It is about the constitution.

It's certainly not a hatred of religion

It is a hatred of those people that think religion puts them above law. Look at that Judge in Alabama on the 10 commandments - he willing broke the law and went against a court order & the religious whack jobs celebrated him for doing it. The law means NOTHING to these people.

Thats what these people think - to hell with everything so long as they get to pound their bibles and save us all.

Trav - sometimes the term "freedom to..." can be interchanged with "freedom from.."

no it cant

I feel for you. I really do.

can I get some freedom from your stupid ass then?

simply...yes. I had a real cheap zinger lined up for you here but that accomplishes nothing. Enjoy your freedom.

The supreme court justices were clear on the issue

No religious involvement

Yes if the item has historical value of a non religious nature.

Trav - I assume you feel you are better placed to make constitutional decisions than the supreme court justices. Could that be a case of religious conservatism superiority complex rearing its head again ?- ie if it doesn't promote christianity then the decision is wrong. Or as you put it - if it doesn't maintain the good old days then it's wrong. With that attitude we'd still be in the caves...

Hell - the founding fathers should have scrapped the constitution and just said use the Bible.

thank you, wussy.

your quite welcome, Trav

Originally posted by DrewM
The supreme court justices were clear on the issue

No religious involvement

Yes if the item has historical value of a non religious nature.

Trav - I assume you feel you are better placed to make constitutional decisions than the supreme court justices. Could that be a case of religious conservatism superiority complex rearing its head again ?- ie if it doesn't promote christianity then the decision is wrong. Or as you put it - if it doesn't maintain the good old days then it's wrong. With that attitude we'd still be in the caves...

Hell - the founding fathers should have scrapped the constitution and just said use the Bible.

for the 10th time, I am not religious, I jsut dont see any harm in having a 10 commandments statue in a courthouse

Those damn activist judges - they are always ruining it for the small minded bigots.

Originally posted by Travh20
for the 10th time, I am not religious, I jsut dont see any harm in having a 10 commandments statue in a courthouse

Trav - I don't get it. You argue the slippery slope routine more than anyone around here yet ideas tthat were fundemental in the creation of OUR country are slowly being eroded and you stand up for it.

considering the 10 commandments have been in courthouses since before the founding fathers wrote the constituion, and they somehow left them in there (gasp) I would say clowly is the key word

Lets build a building next to each courthouse for religious stuff.
Black magic, buddah, christianity, jews, mohammads, sun worship, wicca, and all the rest. We can sell cokes and hotdogs.
Jezz, it would be bigger than the courthouse.
Hey, we don't even need the courthouse. Lets just take the guilty bastards out and stone them to death. ;)

QUOTE]Originally posted by Travh20 elieve
considering the 10 commandments have been in courthouses since before the founding fathers wrote the constituion, and they somehow left them in there (gasp) I would say clowly is the key word [/QUOTE]

Slowly is the key word...today - I don't think slowly will be quite the word in the very near future. These people have an agenda. Their agenda is NOT to be accepted as an equal (like the gay agenda that I have no problem with). Their agenda, no, their mission is to convert everyone to their faith in order to save their souls from eternal damnation. There is a big difference. You will worship thier God. Not yours (if you believe).

That is why I stated earlier that sometimes freedom means freedom from. Freedom from inevitable religeous bigotry and persecution. History has demonstrated this over and over again yet we fail to remember or we decide that religious freedom or the right to be free from religion is a leftist idea. I believe that this is a central ideal of our constitution and part of the greatness that is...or could be America. It is, or was, what seperates us from most of the world.

This thread has brough back lots of memories, even a tear to me eye. LOL Sorry, I almost agree with the supreme court but not totaly.
I feel that the states should decide what is placed on the state property, and as for federal government property I have always felt that if the majority says they want them, then we should get what we the majority asks for.
Nothing else will ever work in a democracy, but since we are a representitive republic then we get only what those who are elected want.

Originally posted by Travh20
for the 10th time, I am not religious, I jsut dont see any harm in having a 10 commandments statue in a courthouse

You don't see the harm to the constitution?

You believe something unconstitutional should remain just because in your eyes it does no harm?

It does plenty of harm & I don't buy your reason for 1 second.

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (search), who lost his job two years ago after refusing to remove a giant replica of the sacred tablets he had placed in his courthouse, said the Supreme Court erred in its Kentucky ruling.

"We're talking about acknowledging the God on which this nation was built. Certainly the court has no authority to forbid that acknowledgment," Moore said on "FOX & Friends."


See what I mean - these whack jobs think the US was built by a Christian God. They think they own the US.

Originally posted by DrewM
You don't see the harm to the constitution?

You believe something unconstitutional should remain just because in your eyes it does no harm?

It does plenty of harm & I don't buy your reason for 1 second.

Drew, if the 10 commandments in a courthouse are so dangerous, why did the founding fathers themselves leave them in there? there were ten commandments in courthouses back then, apparently, they didnt seem to see anything wrong with it.

for the 10th time, I am not religious, I jsut dont see any harm in having a 10 commandments statue in a courthouse Don't wanna derail the topic but apparently you see harm in letting 2 girls get married in a court house. Why the difference? Neither would have any effect on you as you say.

BTW I'd like to see where you picked up that bit about America's first courts displaying the ten commandments,

Trave wrote

Drew, if the 10 commandments in a courthouse are so dangerous, why did the founding fathers themselves leave them in there? there were ten commandments in courthouses back then, apparently, they didnt seem to see anything wrong with it.



or slavery either?

Lets face the facts.
There are people in this country that would do away with courthouses entirely.
The churches would conduct the laws.
The minister would delegate authority according to the bible.
Stand ready to be guilty if you are of another or of no faith.
For the bible, in its vastness, covers all occasions according to the interpreter.

Constitutional quoting is merely a fall-back in search of religious power.

if the 10 commandments in a courthouse are so dangerous, why did the founding fathers themselves leave them in there? there were ten commandments in courthouses back then, apparently, they didnt seem to see anything wrong with it.

Originally posted by Tapeworm
Trave wrote

Drew, if the 10 commandments in a courthouse are so dangerous, why did the founding fathers themselves leave them in there? there were ten commandments in courthouses back then, apparently, they didnt seem to see anything wrong with it.



or slavery either?

this only proves you pick and choose when to revere them and revile them. if they happen to write something that goes along with your pet casuse, that being any thing opposing religion, they wee the smartest guys ever and we should listen to them, on the other hand, they were backwards idiont who believed in slavery. the glorious left wing double standards are back again!

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I have always felt that if the majority says they want them, then we should get what we the majority asks for.
Sometimes the majority can be incorrect...BV. The majority of the people in the South wanted Slaves, was that correct? No. We must go with what is correct according to the Constitution, not what is the popular opinion.

Originally posted by Overdose
Sometimes the majority can be incorrect...BV. The majority of the people in the South wanted Slaves, was that correct? No. We must go with what is correct according to the Constitution, not what is the popular opinion.

of course anyone in th minority will always say this. where did you dig up a beruit veteran post anyway OD?

Sure so long as we kill aldulterers( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=20&verse=10&version=31&context=verse ), smite those wearing poly-cotton blends ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev%2019:19;&version=31; ), own foreign slaves ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025:44,45 ) and fully legalize abortion.( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021:22-25;&version=31; )

Trav - wheres the link to where you read that the founding fathers put the 10 commandments into court houses?

I didnt say they put them there, i said they were there already, and the either forgot to take them down or didnt think they needed to.

Yeah...you keep saying it like its true without proving to anyone else in here that it is. So did you make that shit up or are you gonna provide a link?

Originally posted by Travh20
of course anyone in th minority will always say this. where did you dig up a beruit veteran post anyway OD?
Page 3.

And anyone with a fucking brain would say this. My mother and father are white and middle class. They are in the majority. Yet, they agree that laws should only be allowed if the majority is in line with the Constitution. Or, if you must, change the Constitution to fit what you believe. So, Trav, you'd say it's okay to allow slaves if the majority wanted to?

there is such a thing as minority tyranny too OD

And.......???

anyway, back to the thread.....

Sometimes a "no comment" is worse than a comment

So Trav You willing to admit that you lied to everybody about the founding father allowing the 10 commandments into courtrooms yet? Or are you pullin a W?

Originally posted by Travh20
if the 10 commandments in a courthouse are so dangerous, why did the founding fathers themselves leave them in there? there were ten commandments in courthouses back then, apparently, they didnt seem to see anything wrong with it.

I don't know where you are coming up with this from - but it is missleading to say the least.

As mentioned the founding fathers had slaves too.

Any displays in the courthouse back then didn't bring out legions of loonies intent on promoting an chrsitian agenda.

These issues arise now not on instances where something has been there for hundreds of years - but on instances where recent additions have been made and organizations like the ACLU file suit.

The suits were filed - the constitution was invoked. Why do you have have such a hard time with that Trav?

In fact - why do you have a hard time with anything that goes against hard core religious right viewpoints? The consititution be damned in your rule book - you don't seem to think that document is worth anything.

so you think the ten commandments in courthouses is something the loonie right wingers just started to spite your dumb asses? I can assure you, it is nothing new. the ten commandments have been in courthouses since, well since the ten commandments came into being.

Times change as does society. Keep up, Trav. You're falling behind.

Originally posted by Travh20
so you think the ten commandments in courthouses is something the loonie right wingers just started to spite your dumb asses? I can assure you, it is nothing new. the ten commandments have been in courthouses since, well since the ten commandments came into being.

No I don't think that - but the loonies sure arrive by the busload when a recent new 10 commandments placement is challenged.

Your logic holds no water at all Trav. Admit it - you hate the constitution.

OD, even you should be able to see the stupidity in arguing the ten commandments in courthouses goes against what the founding fathers intended when they themselves did not remove the ten commandments form courthouses in their day. IF they meant for the first ammendment to imply that a 10 commandments display is unconstituitional wouldnt they take all of them out? surely if any one knows what they meant it is them.

Originally posted by Travh20
OD, even you should be able to see the stupidity in arguing the ten commandments in courthouses goes against what the founding fathers intended when they themselves did not remove the ten commandments form courthouses in their day.
And they had slaves, and we've as a society deemed that incorrect. Again, times are far different then they were back then. Why do we have to do exactly what they would have wanted us to do?

Originally posted by Travh20
IF they meant for the first ammendment to imply that a 10 commandments display is unconstituitional wouldnt they take all of them out? surely if any one knows what they meant it is them.
I don't think it's unconstitutional, because it says that we can't make a law respecting religion...but I still don't see why we as a society can't just understand that not everyone is Christian? And just remove them from our government? Can't we be reasonable? Would you like to have the Satanic "rules" written on our courts? Doubtful.

Yes OD you are right about the majority I was only making a point that we arent a democracy. As for the Ten Commandments and courthouses I still say that it should be up to the states and for federal why dont we do what we always say we do? Allow all formal recognized religions place, at their expense, one small piece in the lobby of each building. I know it would be never ending but we proclaim ourselves the melting pot then why dont we freaking melt already?

Originally posted by Overdose
And they had slaves, and we've as a society deemed that incorrect. Again, times are far different then they were back then. Why do we have to do exactly what they would have wanted us to do?

thats a fine argument, but much of the argument against the 10 commandments is that "the founding fathers said so". If you dont claim that is the argument thats fine, but many peopel use the beliefs of the founding fathers as their argument, saying the clearly said no rleigion at all in any way. you cant pick and choose.


Originally posted by Overdose
I don't think it's unconstitutional, because it says that we can't make a law respecting religion...but I still don't see why we as a society can't just understand that not everyone is Christian? And just remove them from our government? Can't we be reasonable? Would you like to have the Satanic "rules" written on our courts? Doubtful.

again, the 10 commandments are not christian. go read a bible. you will clearly see that the 10 commandments are around very early on, thousands of years before jesus was even a twinkle in gods eye. the ten commandments themself do not represent any one religion. Judiasm, Islam and christianity all speak of them. so unless you are saying that this is a christian nation and that you are certain that a simple display of the ten commandments is a monument to christ you have no argument for an establishment of a religion. CLeary you believe this is nota christian nation, so the ten commandments can not mean christ. if you want to get into intentions and though crimes I guess you cn look at the intent.

Originally posted by Travh20
thats a fine argument, but much of the argument against the 10 commandments is that "the founding fathers said so". If you dont claim that is the argument thats fine, but many peopel use the beliefs of the founding fathers as their argument, saying the clearly said no rleigion at all in any way. you cant pick and choose.
...ummm, okay...

Originally posted by Travh20
again, the 10 commandments are not christian. go read a bible. you will clearly see that the 10 commandments are around very early on, thousands of years before jesus was even a twinkle in gods eye. the ten commandments themself do not represent any one religion. Judiasm, Islam and christianity all speak of them. so unless you are saying that this is a christian nation and that you are certain that a simple display of the ten commandments is a monument to christ you have no argument for an establishment of a religion. CLeary you believe this is nota christian nation, so the ten commandments can not mean christ. if you want to get into intentions and though crimes I guess you cn look at the intent.
I don't think the government should do anything at all with religion. Period. Not even the 10 commandments. NO religion at all. Period. That's just how I feel. The government has no bussiness talking about religion.

zero religion in government, hmmmm, it worked out well for stalin and mao

Another obtuse comment when clearly you have no argument

Originally posted by Travh20
zero religion in government, hmmmm, it worked out well for stalin and mao
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html
And maybe even some http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

first off..... Drew, he had a point.... if you didnt pick up on it, go back and reread the post.... it will hit you eventually....

Next, i will use the ultra-liberal arguement....

The 10 commandments doesn't hurt anyone, so why does it matter?.....

if you walk into a courthouse, and you see the 10 commandments, does that cause you pain? Is there a spear going through your heart?

thought not...

If homosexuality can be okay and yet offend people, but the arguement of "it doesn't hurt anyone" can be used... than the same can be used here......

nuff said

why is it that any mention of religion is outrageous and unaceptable, but we can be bombarded wih sex day in and day out and the answer is always " dont watch it if you dont like it."

If you show me a sex-monument in a courthouse then this would be an accurate analogy.

ten commandments in a judicial branch building does not establish" A" religion. it is relgious in nature, but does not establish a certain religion.

I would not argue that this necessarily "establishes" a religion. Having the 10 commandments in a courthouse only bothers me on a minor level...similar to having "In God we Trust" on our money or the President placing his hand on the Bible when he is sworn into office. It doesn't affect me. Its not as pervasive as something like school prayer.

However, I do not understand the need to have the 10 commandments posted in the courthouse. I can understand how some people might be concerned if they are going in front of a judge who places a monument in his courthouse that says "thou shall have no other Gods before me" or "thou shall honor thy mother and father". What if it comes up in a trial that the plantiff or defendant are not religious or don't get along with their parents? These things are not against the law, but I can understand someone being uncomfortable being tried in this case...even though it might be rare for a judge to let these feelings interfere with his ruling.

Originally posted by Travh20
again, the 10 commandments are not christian. go read a bible. you will clearly see that the 10 commandments are around very early on, thousands of years before jesus was even a twinkle in gods eye. the ten commandments themself do not represent any one religion. Judiasm, Islam and christianity all speak of them.

That's all well and good, but the reality is that it's only the fundies that are trying to get them into schools and courthouses. I no more believe that they're trying to put them in for historical purposes than you believe Ted Koppel is actually postings KIA soldiers' names to honor them.

Originally posted by dnamertz
If you show me a sex-monument in a courthouse then this would be an accurate analogy.

that is a good point. if a naked statue of lady justice s not sexual then the ten commandments is not religious. its all in the intent of the viewer I suppose

Originally posted by Travh20
that is a good point. if a naked statue of lady justice s not sexual then the ten commandments is not religious. its all in the intent of the viewer I suppose
How many people masturbate to naked statues of Lady Justice? Compare that number to the people who view the Ten Commandments as the highest laws given by God to be obeyed.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
How many people masturbate to naked statues of Lady Justice? Compare that number to the people who view the Ten Commandments as the highest laws given by God to be obeyed.

you have to masturbate to something to think it represents sexuality? look, I dont think lady justice is pornographic and should be removed. But saying that she is is about as stupid as saying a fucking statue of the ten commandments is forcing all americans to worship christ.

if you walk into a courthouse, and you see the 10 commandments, does that cause you pain? Is there a spear going through your heart?
It gives the impression that the judge you will be sitting in front of may not be fair and impartial to those not of his religion. And if this is the case and you are under trial for a crime you didn't commit, and you're an agnostic... doesn't seem very helpful to me.

But saying that she is is about as stupid as saying a fucking statue of the ten commandments is forcing all americans to worship christ.
Who said christ? It's religion in general, and it is certainly not the same religion as the Hindus, or the Buddhists or the Wiccans or the Muslims. And it certainly has nothing to do with the atheists or agnostics.

Originally posted by Decka
first off..... Drew, he had a point.... if you didnt pick up on it, go back and reread the post.... it will hit you eventually....

Next, i will use the ultra-liberal arguement....

The 10 commandments doesn't hurt anyone, so why does it matter?.....

if you walk into a courthouse, and you see the 10 commandments, does that cause you pain? Is there a spear going through your heart?

thought not...

If homosexuality can be okay and yet offend people, but the arguement of "it doesn't hurt anyone" can be used... than the same can be used here......

nuff said

Your argument makes little sense.

It's not an issue of being offended - its an issue of upholding the constitution of the USA. It's an issue of not allowing the religious right to do whatever they want - people who truly believe that their religious beliefs place them above everything.

Homosexuality is a different subject alltogether - for one it repesents the rights of people, not objects and whether or not people are offended is irrelevant.

In both cases constututional rights are being upheld. That should be all anybody could ask for.

I do not understand why people forget about the constitution.

The Bible thumpers have their place - in church. They don't own this country & they never will. Their idea of saving the whole country from itself is just bullshit to me.

It's no coincidence that the people that want the 10 commandments up in court houses also think gays are deviants. It's the same small minded ignorant backwater red neck lets save their souls crap.

How many people masturbate to naked statues of Lady Justice? Apparently only John Ashcroft and Trav at the moment...
:banana:

Originally posted by DrewM

The Bible thumpers have their place - in church. They don't own this country & they never will.

I disagree.

It seems to me we are headed --inevitably-- for the day when the religious Right faction among us gains complete control of the government.....(i.e., the elected officials who run the government)

________________________________

""Freedom of thought is essential to a democracy and deadly to an organized religion. Hence we see in modern American society---with it's pathological hatred for free thought and it's unflaging promotion of blind "faith"--- the continuing decline of democracy and the increasingly strident promotion of religious belief.""

One word....WOW.

Now that being said, I think I will shock everyone today and actually say that now that I have thought about it for a while, I think that the justices were right in their accessment and eventual decision in this case. Now the conservative in me is sad, but I also think that in the national and religious interests of the country needed to be looked at in this manner. I think that it made sense to put this kind of ruling down. I say that for these reasons.

1. We knew that there was going to be a retirement of a justice, this means that not only was one or more of the justices going to leave, but we know that there will be a lengthy battle in the senate, The court saw this and decided to rule rather than to send it back to the lower courts. Make a difference now rather than inflame some later.

2. This also shows that the Supreme Court is not totally controlled by the President, they can and do make their own decisions. Just the way it should be. Some want it the other way, but how can you argue the Founding Father's design for federal government?

3. Most are split on the issue, we dont want to alienate some at the expense of others. As a Christian Conservative I think that it is needed but then again we have laws that protect the minority. Conservatives will not always be in the majority, I am learning that we need to work on both sides in all cases of the 3 branches of government, not stack the deck. Doing that only ensures that there will be problems later.


Some will agree, other will not but I think they made the only decisions that were available.

It seems to me we are headed --inevitably-- for the day when the religious Right faction among us gains complete control of the government.....(i.e., the elected officials who run the government)

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
One word....WOW.

And should it ever come to pass, no doubt your *one word* will be ------- "YIPPEE!!"

I would rather live in a world run by pat robertson then freethinker of allforums. That is, if I had to choose betweeen insane nutcases to run the world

Yeah I agree with you Trav. At least Pat Robertson is committed to something, whereas liberals are not committed to much. Or shall we say cant commit to much.

Originally posted by Travh20
I would rather live in a world run by pat robertson then freethinker of allforums. That is, if I had to choose betweeen insane nutcases to run the world

As much as I disagree with freethinker in his style and manners... I'd have to say that considering core ideas...Pat Robertson is worse than FT...

At least Pat Robertson is committed to something, whereas liberals are not committed to much. what? like wiping gays off the face of the Earth and bringing about the rapture?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
what? like wiping gays off the face of the Earth and bringing about the rapture?

somehow i doubt Mr. Robertson is suggesting massive slaughtering of gay people

Originally posted by Decka
somehow i doubt Mr. Robertson is suggesting massive slaughtering of gay people
Well, he thinks that gay people bring about hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, "and possibly a meteor"...

Exactly, love the sinner. Hate the sin. It is a foregone conclusion that gays and other liberals would like to further the legislation against any sort of religious expression, or for that matter any expression that offends another person. What makes people like Pat Robertson, Rush, Tammy Bruce, and others dangerous to the liberal left is that they see the dangers of this kind of legislation and fight agianst it.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
It is a foregone conclusion that gays and other liberals would like to further the legislation against any sort of religious expression, or for that matter any expression that offends another person.

It's a more foregone conclusion, based on your posts, that you haven't the first damn clue what you're talking about.

What legislation would you be referring to?

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
Exactly, love the sinner. Hate the sin. It is a foregone conclusion that gays and other liberals would like to further the legislation against any sort of religious expression, or for that matter any expression that offends another person. What makes people like Pat Robertson, Rush, Tammy Bruce, and others dangerous to the liberal left is that they see the dangers of this kind of legislation and fight agianst it.
It's a foregone conclusion that whenever idiots try to generalize, they're always wrong, especially when it comes to politics. "Group X believes Y" will be wrong 100% of the time, unless it's part of the definition, such as, gay rights activists believe in gay rights.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
Exactly, love the sinner. Hate the sin.

That's the correct theory, but I don't know that I've seen many conservative Christian types practice it.

Originally posted by Vilepagan

What legislation would you be referring to?

he is right, there will be no legislation, it will all be done by lawyers in black robes

he is right, there will be no legislation, it will all be done by lawyers in black robes
Black robes?

Originally posted by Travh20
he is right, there will be no legislation, it will all be done by lawyers in black robes I'll give you $100 and dinner at a restaurant of your choice the day the Supreme Court bans church services.