Do the Ten Commandments belong in our courthouses?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Religion

The 10 are among our oldest written laws. The United States is a nation of Laws. Folks are certainly fed up with the higher courts right now, given the recent rulings, and are probably not in the mood, especially in Ala-fu***ng-bamma to be told otherwise. I can envision the portion of the building that monument is sitting on being zoned something else in an effort to keep the 10 sitting there. Ought to be an interesting battle.

We at Morons.org (http://web.morons.org) have been covering "Crazy" Roy Moore for a while now. I even wrote one.

The 10 are among our oldest written laws.
LOL!!!!
Weren't they given out to Moses in the age of the Egyptians? How the hell can they be some of the oldest, there has to be written laws that are a thousand or more years older(that might be a bit of an exageration... but whatever)

Hey bozo..the statement is accurate. Read the statement, out loud if you must, to glean the meaning therein. Not one word is more than 2 syllables - even you should be able to decipher that much.

There's a similar fight going on near me - some school district out in the boonies wants to put the 10 commandments outside of the schools and of course the ACLU sues them in federal court. Same story everywhere. It's all politics, of course. Every elected official in heavily fundamentalist areas sets these things up so that they can play the hero when the federal courts eventually order the commandments removed. It pisses me off that the fundamentalists can't understand that the separation of church and state protects their goals far more than it hinders them. And from a practical point of view, they know damn well that they're going to lose and yet they spend the taxpayer's money freely on the defense of these lawsuits that can't be won. The local school district is one of the poorest and worst in the state and still they insist upon tilting at windmills. Pisses me off. (As you can see I like the separation of church and state).

I see nothing at all wrong with having the Ten Commandments displayed in a courtroom. In fact, I think a courtroom is the ideal place for them. Whether you’re a religious person or not, you have to admit that the Ten Commandments represent the basic laws for nearly every civilized nation.

Originally posted by Mopoloton
I see nothing at all wrong with having the Ten Commandments displayed in a courtroom. In fact, I think a courtroom is the ideal place for them. Whether you’re a religious person or not, you have to admit that the Ten Commandments represent the basic laws for nearly every civilized nation. Dont you know Mop? The Ten Commandments are far more dangerous to our society than crazed terrorists ever were. Why *GASP* if we were to allow something with religious origins to be NEAR a fine, moral institute such as a court of law (LMAO), it would just bring our country to its knees. I wonder how long before "In God We Trust" is taken off the dollar bill? I mean, after all, the federal government mints this money. So, what the hell, why dont we just bow down to minority special interest groups like we have been doing and make this country something to be really proud of. An immoral, godless society that only worships money. Oh wait, we are already there. NFM.......

"I see nothing at all wrong with having the Ten Commandments displayed in a courtroom. In fact, I think a courtroom is the ideal place for them. Whether you’re a religious person or not, you have to admit that the Ten Commandments represent the basic laws for nearly every civilized nation." - Mopoloton

No, a few of them are:

5. Thou shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not steal
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (lie)

but the rest are insurance clauses or reinforcements of other commandments. Out of the ten, these three are the only laws. But this is not the point of debate... The point is that by posting these things in government places, we show a union of the two (Law & Christianity) when they are supposed to be two seperate entities. You cannot have freedom of religion when the governing body is controlled by one religion. Suppose an Islamic man were falsely accused of a crime. Do you think he would expect fair judgement from a court that has this outside? Would you in similar circumstances? Say you were in Saudi Arabia where religion and law are the same. Now say you were falsely accused of a crime. Would you feel safe under that law?

Originally posted by HaVoK
So, what the hell, why dont we just bow down to minority special interest groups like we have been doing and make this country something to be really proud of. An immoral, godless society that only worships money. Oh wait, we are already there. NFM.......

Well said Havok it does seem like the GOD almighty dollar is taking over.

As far as the court and church, I agree with Es347fan this is going to get interesting.

Originally posted by aVaTaR
Out of the ten, these three are the only laws.
Indeed. http://web.morons.org/feature/useless-commandments.jsp

Originally posted by aVaTaR

the rest are insurance clauses or reinforcements of other commandments. Out of the ten, these three are the only laws.

True, but these three are the basic laws of every civilized nation on Earth. Even though the rest of the commandments are not laws, they are MORALLY correct. Every decent person has a good grasp of right and wrong, no matter what religion they are.

Also, just because the commandments are displayed in a courtroom doesn’t mean you HAVE to read them. If you feel threatened by the Ten Commandments (which you shouldn’t) just don’t look at them.

If only it were that easy. The ACLU insists that merely catching a glimpse of the 10 Commandments will make you feel like you're being forced to join an organized Christian religion. Meanwhile the fundamentalists insist that placing the 10 Commandments in schools and courtrooms will solve all of our crime problems, as felons suddenly see the light and end their lives of crime.

It probably wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't feel like the fundamentalists were trying to shove their own particular brand of religion down my throat.

"Even though the rest of the commandments are not laws, they are MORALLY correct. Every decent person has a good grasp of right and wrong, no matter what religion they are." - Mopoloton

1. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath day

Really? These three are "morally" correct? Maybe to you since you are so obviously a christian. But to me these are not moral in the least. I will worship Gerblin Mebung the great pixie if I want. THAT is freedom of religion. I will say "GOD DAMN IT!!!" when I feel the need because THAT is freedom of speech! And I will work on Saturdays or Sundays because........ well, I'm in between looking for jobs at the moment, but... THAT isn't even a right... It's a "must" most of the time!

These statements have no place in a court of law. Placing these in a place where our freedoms are protected is an endorcement by the government of a particular religion. Does our government endorse religions?! Do we live in a fascist country?! NO I SAY! We live in a country where people are garaunteed LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS! Now GO my childrens! Go and spread the word of FREEDOM from sea to shining sea! Go out into the world and "Let Freedom Ring!"

Just a thought. When someone takes the stand and is told to raise his/her right hand, exactly who, or what, are they swearing to that their testimony is honest?

Havok that is one of those old laws that were used along time ago when it ment something. When it is said now it is just a formality, it's kind of like asking a criminal to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Quite honestly it means nothing to alot of people.

Originally posted by mad dog
Havok that is one of those old laws that were used along time ago when it ment something. When it is said now it is just a formality, it's kind of like asking a criminal to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Quite honestly it means nothing to alot of people. Thats not really the point. Each of us gets out of it what we want to. The point is that our judicial system was created with a core religious bent to it whether people here want to aknowledge that or not. The people who created our judicial system created this system thinking that the love of God and the fear of God's wrath would make people be honest while on the stand. Im sure they never imagined the Godless society that has become our nation.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Just a thought. When someone takes the stand and is told to raise his/her right hand, exactly who, or what, are they swearing to that their testimony is honest?

Havok the Slanderer,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Knowing what a careful reader you are, I'll repeat the important part there: NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

So, what's the core of our judicial system again? The First Amendment, or some trite formality people exercise before they testify at a trial?

Originally posted by Leper
Havok the Slanderer,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Knowing what a careful reader you are, I'll repeat the important part there: NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

So, what's the core of our judicial system again? The First Amendment, or some trite formality people exercise before they testify at a trial? If you read my post, you would see that i said it was created with a religious "BENT" to it. I didnt say it was the core, or foundation. Do you even understand what i was stating? Can you understand? As i said in my earlier post. People get out of the oath what they want to. To some, it means something. When it was first implemented it obviously meant something. What you call a "trite formality" was anything but. Your narrow view will not allow you to see this im sure. Why would our founding fathers allow something like an oath to take place in a court of law? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT?

Here's a thought paper boy. Next time you respond to one of my posts, take a little time and try to actually UNDERSTAND what im talking about. I know it takes you a while to actually process words that you read, and patience is not your strong suit, but its worth the effort i assure you.

And another thing paper boy. If taking the oath is a "trite formality", then why is it a felony to be caught lying after taking the oath?

Hey Leper....that's Slandering HaVoK. If you're going to lay insults out there, at least make them the correct ones.

Yeah!!!! Thanks ES. (I think) :D

It's a handle you agreed to as opposed to the one laid on you by Leper. Only trying to keep the wannabe bottom feeder in line.

Originally posted by aVaTaR
"1. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath day

Really? These three are "morally" correct? Maybe to you since you are so obviously a christian. But to me these are not moral in the least.
“Thou shalt not take thy lord God’s name in vain.” This doesn’t necessarily mean saying the word “goddamn.” An example of taking God’s name in vain would be Jim Baker pretending to teach God’s word in order to get rich. Even the atheists consider that guy a lowlife.
Keeping the Sabbath day did originally mean not working on Sunday, but like many rules of the Old Testament, the crucifixion changed it. Now it can easily be interpreted as attending church on Sunday, or simply praying and giving thanks on Sunday.
As for “Thou shalt not bow down to any god before me,” you say you’re an atheist, so you shouldn’t have any problem with this at all.

As I said before, if the commandments don’t suit you’re particular beliefs…DON’T LOOK AT THEM! No one is going to hold a gun to your head and make you recite the Ten Commandments, so you’re freedom of religion is pretty much safe.

Havok the Slanderer,

Ok, forgive me if I'm unclear on the significance of "core religious bent." To me, that sounds pretty significant. Do I need to define the word "core"? By trite formalities, I'm talking about any inclusion of religious customs in taking the oath, not the oath itself. Dur.

Originally posted by Leper
Havok the Slanderer,

Ok, forgive me if I'm unclear on the significance of "core religious bent." To me, that sounds pretty significant. Do I need to define the word "core"? By trite formalities, I'm talking about any inclusion of religious customs in taking the oath, not the oath itself. Dur. To you, "core religoius bent" sounds pretty signifigant. Yet you find swearing to God on a witness stand "a trite formailty". You seem to be lost in your own flawed logic here.

So lets try to use sound logic for once. Is it true that when you are called to the witness stand that said witness is required to "swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God"? Is it safe to assume that the God in reference is a religious icon? Has it always been required to swear to God before giving testimony? So therefore, is it not logical to make the statement that our Judicial system has always had a core religous "BENT" to it? Or has your extreme animosity towards me totally blinded you in this matter? Maybe you think you can simply baffle me with your bullshit.

“Thou shalt not take thy lord God’s name in vain.” This doesn’t necessarily mean saying the word “goddamn.” An example of taking God’s name in vain would be Jim Baker pretending to teach God’s word in order to get rich. Even the atheists consider that guy a lowlife.

Yes we do... but that has nothing to do with taking god's name in vain. That has to do with taking advantage of stupid people. Nobody likes it when the weak are exploited.

Keeping the Sabbath day did originally mean not working on Sunday, but like many rules of the Old Testament, the crucifixion changed it. Now it can easily be interpreted as attending church on Sunday, or simply praying and giving thanks on Sunday.

This has absolutely nothing to do with law...

As for “Thou shalt not bow down to any god before me,” you say you’re an atheist, so you shouldn’t have any problem with this at all.

I've already told you about Gerblin Mebung, the great pixie mime... but again this has no relevance to the law.

Is it true that when you are called to the witness stand that said witness is required to "swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God"? Is it safe to assume that the God in reference is a religious icon? Has it always been required to swear to God before giving testimony? So therefore, is it not logical to make the statement that our Judicial system has always had a core religous "BENT" to it?

Yes, the Law was based on religion. It's not anymore. Now it is based on justice, tolerance, and equality. The founding fathers were confused in the fact that you just can't have a religious body of government AND freedom of religion. Which would you rather have? Would you like to return the country to days of Puritanism? I doubt it... or maybe instead of removing religion, we could just thow them all in there. Christianity, Judeism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, Shintao, and all those little lesser known religions... They all have their own set of morals and Laws, and since the country is made up of peoples of all these walks of life, why not base the laws off of all of them? That would be... fun! No the only way to have freedom of religion is to remove it from the Government completely, and base justice on the mores of the people not the morals of the church.

P.S. What the heck is "bent"?

Originally posted by aVaTaR


Yes, the Law was based on religion. It's not anymore. Now it is based on justice, tolerance, and equality. The founding fathers were confused in the fact that you just can't have a religious body of government AND freedom of religion. Which would you rather have? Would you like to return the country to days of Puritanism? I doubt it... or maybe instead of removing religion, we could just thow them all in there. Christianity, Judeism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, Shintao, and all those little lesser known religions... They all have their own set of morals and Laws, and since the country is made up of peoples of all these walks of life, why not base the laws off of all of them? That would be... fun! No the only way to have freedom of religion is to remove it from the Government completely, and base justice on the mores of the people not the morals of the church.

P.S. What the heck is "bent"? I never gave an opinion either way on the decision to allow the oath in a court of law. I simply said there were religious leanings in the origin of law in this country. I gave the oath as an example of what i meant. The paper boy tried to attack what i said without ever even understanding what the hell i was saying in the first place.



No the only way to have freedom of religion is to remove it from the Government completely, and base justice on the mores of the people not the morals of the church. Whose morals exactly do we base our justice on? As you pointed out, everyone has different morals.

P.S. What the heck is "bent"? Bent is a variation of the word bend. It simply means leaning.

We base the laws on the mores of the society, through a series of polls, censuses, and finally a vote. Democracy in action, baby!

"The 11th Circuit earlier this year agreed with a ruling by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, who held the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion."

Moore's supporters announced plans for a series of protests that an organizer promised would be "Christ-centered, peaceful and prayerful."

Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said the protests would begin with a prayer vigil on the steps of the court building at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday.

"Every minute that monument stays in the building after August 20 is a victory," Mahoney said.

"Thompson has said he may fine the state about $5,000 a day if the monument is not removed by the end of the day Wednesday. He has said it would be permissible for the monument to be moved to a less public site, such as Moore's office."

Let's see... $5,000 x 365 = $1,825,000

I think it's safe to say, "I bet it doesn't last a year." ;)

Originally posted by Leper
Havok the Slanderer,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Knowing what a careful reader you are, I'll repeat the important part there: NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

So, what's the core of our judicial system again? The First Amendment, or some trite formality people exercise before they testify at a trial?

NO, you forgot the most important part,

"..Or prohibit the free exercise thereof",

you also say the government shall not establish any religion. What was meant by that was the government shall not create a government religion that all citizens must follow, such as the Church of England, which was a government made church that all the subjects were supposed to be part of. The US Government did not create christianity or any other religion. I find it funny what parts of the constitution liberals pick and choose to be fanatical about, they are hell bent for leather to uphold the supposed "seperation of church and state" (which nowhere in the constitution does it say this) but when it comes to the second ammendment, they will use it as TP. Talk about the infamous good time, phoney baloney, plastic bannana rock and roller consitutionalists!

Originally posted by HaVoK
To you, "core religoius bent" sounds pretty signifigant. Yet you find swearing to God on a witness stand "a trite formailty". You seem to be lost in your own flawed logic here.

So lets try to use sound logic for once. Is it true that when you are called to the witness stand that said witness is required to "swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God"?

Havok the Slanderer,

Logic, that's good.

Yes, swearing to god is merely a formality in a trial, and IMO, a trite one. First, swearing to God is not required in the oath. In the trials I've seen, not one of them used a Bible or made the witness say "so help me God." The only place I've seen it is in movies. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen in some courtrooms, but I think it's safe to say describing that part of the oath as "core" to our justice system is an enormous misrepresentation, but you're used to doing that, aren't you?

Originally posted by Travh20
NO, you forgot the most important part,

"..Or prohibit the free exercise thereof",

you also say the government shall not establish any religion. What was meant by that was the government shall not create a government religion that all citizens must follow, such as the Church of England, which was a government made church that all the subjects were supposed to be part of. The US Government did not create christianity or any other religion. I find it funny what parts of the constitution liberals pick and choose to be fanatical about, they are hell bent for leather to uphold the supposed "seperation of church and state" (which nowhere in the constitution does it say this) but when it comes to the second ammendment, they will use it as TP. Talk about the infamous good time, phoney baloney, plastic bannana rock and roller consitutionalists!

You understand that a judge acts as an arm of the government, right? That means whenever a judge exercises or endorses a religion while he acts as judge, that is government respecting a religious establishment.

Now, if the government tried to control his religious practices in his personal life, THEN the clause you're talking about would kick in.

Originally posted by Leper
Havok the Slanderer,

Logic, that's good.

Yes, swearing to god is merely a formality in a trial, and IMO, a trite one. First, swearing to God is not required in the oath. In the trials I've seen, not one of them used a Bible or made the witness say "so help me God." The only place I've seen it is in movies. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen in some courtrooms, but I think it's safe to say describing that part of the oath as "core" to our justice system is an enormous misrepresentation, but you're used to doing that, aren't you? When the judicial system was created, was it required to "swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God"? And since i am neither a "student" of law such as *ahem* yourself, nor a criminal, i do not profess to know what is required when taking the stand in todays courtroom. Just stick to the facts of what i am actually talking about. All along i have been talking about how our judicial system was created. Yet you keep trying to warp my words to fit your twisted logic. So who exactly is perpetuating "an enormous misrepresentation" here?

Even people who cannot stand the way i write on this board can understand what i have been saying. I have been very precise in how i word every sentence used in this post. Yet you seem to be either incapable of, or refuse to, understand.

Originally posted by Leper
You understand that a judge acts as an arm of the government, right? That means whenever a judge exercises or endorses a religion while he acts as judge, that is government respecting a religious establishment.

Now, if the government tried to control his religious practices in his personal life, THEN the clause you're talking about would kick in.

OK, so your dead set against allowing the ten commandements to be displayed in a court house, but your for 2 guys right to slam each other inthe a**, thats great. At least we know what side you are on.

The Commandments do not belong in the courthouse, any more than a crucifix does.

Especially when it has a lot to do with political gain on the part of the judge and very little to do with religion, despite his claims to the contrary.

you all are hopeless. It has to do with more than the commandments, yet with your gigantic brains you cant see past the end of your noses.

Yes we do... but that has nothing to do with taking god's name in vain. That has to do with taking advantage of stupid people. Nobody likes it when the weak are exploited.
I was only using Jim Baker as an example of taking God’s name in vain. The word “goddamn” is in no way sinful, it just isn’t very nice.
This has absolutely nothing to do with law...
So why did you bring it up?
I've already told you about Gerblin Mebung, the great pixie mime... but again this has no relevance to the law.
If you’re an atheist you don’t believe in ANY god; not even Gerblin Mebung. It doesn’t have anything to do with the law, but I don’t see how it or any of the other commandments can be viewed as a threat to anyone.
Yes, the Law was based on religion. It's not anymore. Now it is based on justice, tolerance, and equality. The founding fathers were confused in the fact that you just can't have a religious body of government AND freedom of religion. Which would you rather have? Would you like to return the country to days of Puritanism? I doubt it... or maybe instead of removing religion, we could just thow them all in there. Christianity, Judeism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, Shintao, and all those little lesser known religions... They all have their own set of morals and Laws, and since the country is made up of peoples of all these walks of life, why not base the laws off of all of them? That would be... fun! No the only way to have freedom of religion is to remove it from the Government completely, and base justice on the mores of the people not the morals of the church.
This entire country was founded and developed on Christian beliefs. This is why the words “in God we trust” appear on our currency, why the words “under God” are in the Pledge of Allegiance, why “America the Beautiful” contains the words “God shed his grace on thee.” My point is, in this country, you’re going to see the Ten Commandments SOMEWHERE. It’s really more traditional than it is religious. The Ten Commandments are displayed in that courtroom as a kind of tribute to our forefathers who established the first legal system.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Especially when it has a lot to do with political gain on the part of the judge and very little to do with religion, despite his claims to the contrary.

Yeah, this guy has prioritized his politics over his duties as a judge. He has no business being in the position he is. That's why I've always hated the idea of elected judges.

Oh well, at least 8 of the 9 justices in the Alabama courthouse know their place....

I've never seen the commandments anywhere except in the bible and on the internet... As for the rest of that... Did you even read what I said? Because it seems like you didn't. This:
__________________________________________________
"quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has absolutely nothing to do with law...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


So why did you bring it up?"
__________________________________________________

made no sense in conjunction to the argument... Why did I bring up THIS?:
__________________________________________________
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keeping the Sabbath day did originally mean not working on Sunday, but like many rules of the Old Testament, the crucifixion changed it. Now it can easily be interpreted as attending church on Sunday, or simply praying and giving thanks on Sunday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________________

I didn't. You did. I was trying to tell you that it had no place in a courtroom when it has nothing to do with law and everything to do with propaganda. Please at least try to make sense. This is a sensitive subject to some people and confusing them will just make them angry. Think before you speak.
__________________________________________________
"If you’re an atheist you don’t believe in ANY god; not even Gerblin Mebung. It doesn’t have anything to do with the law, but I don’t see how it or any of the other commandments can be viewed as a threat to anyone." - Mopoloton
__________________________________________________

Then you are blind. It's a threat to our freedom, our harmony, and our entire way of life as Americans. Listen to me. Just pull the *ahem*... wool... out of your ears for a second and listen... You know what? Forget it. You aren't going to listen. And you sure as hell aren't going to think about what I say. Even Havok The Slanderer (hehe sorry) listens and thinks about the argument. You win! Keep the the damn thing! You have bombarded me with idiocy to the point of submission. A clever tactic I must admit.
*throws in the towel* *wishes he had a smoke*

Originally posted by Leper
Yeah, this guy has prioritized his politics over his duties as a judge. He has no business being in the position he is. That's why I've always hated the idea of elected judges.

Oh well, at least 8 of the 9 justices in the Alabama courthouse know their place....

Thats the problem with you liberals, your religion is politics, thats why when this honorable judge stands up for what he believes in, that being the validity of the 10 commandments being in a US courthouse, you say he is doing it becasue of his politics. Politics has nothing to do with it you pompous ass.

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

James Madison, father of the U.S. Constitution

Just a thought....If we keep religion in court rooms then are we not suppose to forgive. So if that is the case then lets not even have a court system because we should just forgive everyone for there crimes no matter what they are. Instead of a judge lets have someone called the forgiver you stand in front of him and swear on the bible to God, and all is forgiven.

Bottom line is government and religion are 2 different things in this country and should be seperate.

Havok I understand what you are saying when these rules came into effect 99.9% of the people were believers of the Bible. Almost everyone was God FEARING and would not tell a lie when they swore to God. They thought that if they swore to God then they better tell the truth so that they would be forgiven when they got to the pearlly gates.

With all of that said times are changing so maybe we need to change also. Take a good look at the prisoners of today and watch how they USE the Bible and God to help them look better. Once they are parold they go right back to the same life they had before sex, DRUGS, and rock and roll(stealing, killing, etc...)They get caught again and the first thing they say is God this and God that. They tell how they were lost but now they are found then they turn around and start the whole cycle over again. This is why religion needs to be seperate from government. Religion has to much pull with our criminals. If Joe The Killer wants to worship fine, but it should never be brought into the parole board to show how good Joe is, because the bottom line is, Joe is still a killer.

OK, so Joe scum bag takes advantage of the lord and all Chistians have to suffer?? Damn liberal speak, just like Joe scumbag shoots someone and they take MY gun away, now Joe Scumbag uses god for his own personal gain and God is taken away?? no way, you liberals have gone far enough, enough already!

OK, leave the 10 Commandments there. Give every other major faith that has a core of beliefs or rules place them in that same courthouse, also on 3 ton granite slabs.

that sounds fine. Unlike some people I have no fear of religion r religious monuments. I am still trying to figure out how in the world a statue of the 10 commandments hurts anybody in any way. Its funny that these same anarchist, liberals, and socialist who all want to do it in the road and have a good time are ardently behind removing these. Its probably the only thing they really believe in, and thats that god should not be anywhere in their lives.

You're the exception to the rule, because if the Koran showed up in that courtroom the fundamentalists would go apeshit. They want the government to endorse their religion and no other. In fact, they wouldn't even put up with a mention of the Pope. Fundies hate Catholics.

You're right, the 10 Commandments don't hurt anyone. That's not the issue. The issue is whether we want the government involved in religion. I don't, and neither did the majority of the founders of this country.

But I guess you're saying that it's OK to read the first amendment liberally? Because if you concede that then the liberals are going to want the 2nd amendment read liberally too, and there go your guns. You can't have it both ways.

And stop calling me a @#$& liberal.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
You're the exception to the rule, because if the Koran showed up in that courtroom the fundamentalists would go apeshit. They want the government to endorse their religion and no other. In fact, they wouldn't even put up with a mention of the Pope. Fundies hate Catholics.

You're right, the 10 Commandments don't hurt anyone. That's not the issue. The issue is whether we want the government involved in religion. I don't, and neither did the majority of the founders of this country.

But I guess you're saying that it's OK to read the first amendment liberally? Because if you concede that then the liberals are going to want the 2nd amendment read liberally too, and there go your guns. You can't have it both ways.

And stop calling me a @#$& liberal.
Well put, Lionel.

Oh, and Trav, mentally replace the 10 Commandments with the Satanist Commandments or the 12 pillars of Islam and see if you like it then.

replace that foot in your mouth with my fist and see if you like it.

Oooh, don't like being proven wrong, eh?

proven wrong?? LOL, is that what you call that? LMAO I am not the one afraid of a granite statue in Alabama. I find it fascinating that of all the laws that the liberals are dead set on enforcing its a law against christianity that isnt even a real law! Legalize everything!! but outlaw the 10 commandments. SOddom and Gommorah here we come!

Jeez, do I have to repeat everything to you? What if that "granite statue" were the Satanic Commandments or the Pillars of Islam? I bet you would fly to Montgomery and picket in front of the Courthouse to remove it.

Am I right or not? Please just answer my question and not answer with "replace that foot in your mouth with my fist and see if you like it." or some other idiotic comment.

LOL, ok, it will never be a satanic statue, thats just stupid, and stupid to try and say the 10 commandments and so called "satanic commandments" are anywhere near the same thing. If there were a islamic statue next to it, fine. If all chistianity were replaced by islamic statues we would ahve a lot worse problems than statues in a building (see Taliban and islamic theocracies)

Originally posted by LionelHutz

And stop calling me a @#$& liberal.

I used to have the same sentiment. Now I apply a separate definition of "liberal" when Trav uses the word. In Trav's vocabulary, it means "a person who disagrees with me."

Not sure if that helps you, but I've found that realization makes my dealings with Trav much more tolerable.

Originally posted by Travh20
but outlaw the 10 commandments. SOddom and Gommorah here we come!

No one has outlawed the 10 commandments, you freak.

so what do you call it when you remove the 10 commandments by force agaisnt people will? Its illegal to display the 10 commandments in public places, I guess in liberal speak that means its legal. Its OK for queers to march around in pink speedos slapping each others ass, but allah forbid we have the 10 commandments in a place where they can be seen! GASP!!! Cover your eyes children, there are the 10 commandments! LOL, its funny, they put up a plywood barrier around the commandments in Alabama so no one would see them, LMFAO, then the government endowment for the arts pays some homosexual the tax payers money to have an "art" display where he drops a picture of Jesus in a jar of elephant urine.

No one is saying it's illegal to display the 10 Commandments in public, just you can't put them on gov't property. "Establishment of religion" and all that.

Technically it is the 9 Satanic Statements, and they aren't that bad, only bad part was with that lying hypocritcal moron LaVey.

1 Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
2 Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3 Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4 Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5 Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!
6 Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7 Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development, has become the most vicious animal of all!
8 Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9 Satan is the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!

hehe, anyways. I don't think removing the 10 commandments will be against many people's will, I doubt many care, and those that do are annoying fundies that worship the devil anyways.

government endowment for the arts pays some homosexual the tax payers money to have an "art" display where he drops a picture of Jesus in a jar of elephant urine.
LOL, that's great.

Its OK for queers to march around in pink speedos slapping each others ass
I think you are just insecure about your ass, is it not sexy enough?

Originally posted by Blibblob
government endowment for the arts pays some homosexual the tax payers money to have an "art" display where he drops a picture of Jesus in a jar of elephant urine.
LOL, that's great.

Its OK for queers to march around in pink speedos slapping each others ass
I think you are just insecure about your ass, is it not sexy enough? Careful Travh. You know anytime you have a harsh word for homosexuals you incur the wraith of the gay crusaders.

Originally posted by aVaTaR

Then you are blind. It's a threat to our freedom, our harmony, and our entire way of life as Americans.
Boy, you’re one hell of a drama queen. Let me ask you this: have you ever been FORCED to read the Ten Commandments? Has a court officer ever told you “recite the Lord’s Prayer or you’ll be arrested?” Has anyone ever walked into that Alabama courtroom only to be forced to read the Ten Commandments at gunpoint? Was any sentence passed down in that courtroom based on the Ten Commandments? If you answered no to all of these, then your freedom is NOT in danger.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Especially when it has a lot to do with political gain on the part of the judge and very little to do with religion, despite his claims to the contrary. Still think it has a lot to do with political GAIN ? In this article, they are talking about making him resign. Doesnt seem like he is making a good choice if he is trying to garner political favor.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/ten.commandments/index.html

Yes, I do. He's got thousands of people hanging outside the courtroom in support of his position. Although I'm not saying that it was a well thought out plan.

Here we have a respected jurist, at, or very near the peak of his professional career, deciding to thumb his nose at the very system he's been sworn repeatedly to uphold. His experience alone should tell him this is a battle that cannot be won. IMHO, something very weird is going on between his ears, and a psychiatric evaluation is not completely out of the question.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Yes, I do. He's got thousands of people hanging outside the courtroom in support of his position. Although I'm not saying that it was a well thought out plan. LOL....its not looking too good for him if this was his "master plan".

service to the government is second to service to god. Only communists would put the laws of the state above gods law.

Originally posted by Travh20
service to the government is second to service to god. Only communists would put the laws of the state above gods law.

Which gods law?

Originally posted by Travh20
service to the government is second to service to god. Only communists would put the laws of the state above gods law.

I did not know the USA were a communist country. But the american law obviously is already in contradiction with the 10 commandments.

Originally posted by Travh20
service to the government is second to service to god. Only communists would put the laws of the state above gods law.
Ah, so you admit you support a theocratic government?

ya, I will admit I support a theocratic government as soon as you say you would supprt a godless communist regime. Idiot liberals, to them if you believe in god you are automatically a taliban, theres no believing in god and having a Republic in their minds, although this country has only stopped believing in god during the last 30 years or so. all you leftists and liberals jump on everyones ass for making genarlizations about people and groups, why dont you look in the mirror.

Travh, do you really believe that the american law follows the 10 commandments ?

I never said it did, I am saying that our laws, as are all laws of civilized western civilization based on the teachings of the Bible and the 10 commandments. What is so wrong with that? Once again I will post a quote from the father of the US Constitution. It seems pretty clear to me.

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

James Madison, father of the U.S. Constitution

Oh yes, Trav, because all liberals are evil atheists who are ruining this country by adhering to the Constitution, only the most important document in our laws.

Trav, get a grip. If you so hate the freedom of religion in this country, then move to Greece or somewhere. We true Americans love the First Amendment. Hypocrite.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Oh yes, Trav, because all liberals are evil atheists who are ruining this country by adhering to the Constitution, only the most important document in our laws.

Trav, get a grip. If you so hate the freedom of religion in this country, then move to Greece or somewhere. We true Americans love the First Amendment. Hypocrite.

Ya, poor liberals, break out the violins, I guess they cant take their own medicine. I guess when you take a page out of their playbook and make them into the evil heartless ones they dont like it, but they sure like to do it to their enemys, whos the hypocrit? Liberal means double standard, double speak hypocrisy. I will give you plenty of examples of this if you wish. ANd again, you cant pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you want to follow. ANd to top it all off, it never says anything about "seperation of church and state" in the constitution. SO I dont know what constitution you are following, I guess this "living document" you liberals love so much, which just means a constitution you can change to suit your need at the drop of a hat. Heres an idea, leave the constitution alone, leave the people alone and please shut up.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Oh yes, Trav, because all liberals are evil atheists who are ruining this country by adhering to the Constitution, only the most important document in our laws.

Trav, get a grip. If you so hate the freedom of religion in this country, then move to Greece or somewhere. We true Americans love the First Amendment. Hypocrite. A "true American" takes an active role in their government. One way to do this is by voting. When was the last time you voted on a public official Borg? In fact, the only thing you have ever talked about on this forum is that the government is being run by an idiot. So how does this make you a true american? I agree with Travh that our country was founded with the love of God. I served my country for 4 years in the military. I pay my taxes. And I also vote. Does this belief that I have make me an "untrue American"?

Religion and government need to be seperate in this country. There are to many different religions out there to start saying one has priority over another. Travh I don't think anyone is arguing about the statue we are arguing about keeping things seperate. I personally don't care what statue is where, if I don't like it I don't look. It does seem funny to me that you have an atheist put his/her hand on the Bible and say that they will not tell a lie so help them GOD. That makes about as much sense as having a blind bus driver.

Originally posted by mad dog
It does seem funny to me that you have an atheist put his/her hand on the Bible and say that they will not tell a lie so help them GOD. That makes about as much sense as having a blind bus driver. That is the point im making Maddog. Our country has changed dramatically in regards to religion. So much so, that some people want to try to make everyone think that religion was never a part of our country in the first place. 200 years ago, no one would have thought that this country would be the Godless country it has become. It would seem preposterous to them that the tolerance level for immoral behavior would be so high. Think about it.

Well, you see mad dog, we do not change our whole way of life to make cedrtain groups happy. We will not get rid of god to please a few radical athiests, just like we will nto allow gay marriage to please the gay crowd. THis is where the whole argument is between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want to change everything we know to please a select few, while conservatives want to keep things how they are, how we know they have worked since the dawn of time.

Every person in this country is entitled to EQUAL rights under the Constitution. The majority is not allowed to tyrannize the minority. Otherwise it'd still be legal to own slaves.

In any case, no one is making you get rid of God...go ahead and worship wherever you want, whenever you want, to whomever or whatever you want. That means that if a group of people worship chewed pieces of Dentyne, then they are allowed to do so, and the government cannot hinder them. Same goes with people who worship an invisible Superman in the sky and his human incarnation, a.k.a. Christians. No one is stopping you from praying in that courthouse, but the government cannot force or even SUGGEST TO YOU that you pray. No one is stopping Crazy Roy Moore from taking the damned rock and putting it on his front lawn, in his living room, or on top of his car, but once it is on government property and government owned, that implies that the government wants you to do what it says. Does the government want us to "worship no other gods before [the Christian God]?" "If you want" is the government's reply. Equal rights. Equal representation.

Oh, and Trav, one last thing. Executing those who disagreed with the King was common practice a thousand years ago. It worked then. Would we be better off if it had stayed that way?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
No one is stopping Crazy Roy Moore from taking the damned rock and putting it on his front lawn, in his living room, or on top of his car, but once it is on government property and government owned, that implies that the government wants you to do what it says. Does the government want us to "worship no other gods before [the Christian God]?" "If you want" is the government's reply. Equal rights. Equal representation.

So by this line of reasoning. Publically funded homosexual/trans gendered high schools are in actuality our government telling us to become homosexuals or transgendered? They are sponsoring their new high school so they must want all of our citizens to act accordingly right? I see no difference in this than what you are saying about religion.

You're right...that is a stupid idea, an all-gay high school.

Well i respect your opinions because you are consistent in them. Dont neccessarily agree, but i respect them.

consistantly hypocritical. He thinks we got rid of slavery for a reason other than it was wrong. WTF? Borg, your arguments are stupid. How does a ten commandments statue oppress or insult or terrorize you in anyway? It doesnt, you hate religion and christianity in particular, so the whole separation of church and state argument is a convienient and safe way for you to attack it. I dont see you or other liberals flapping your lips about the left wing kooks trying to obliterate the 2nd ammendment, anyone can see how transparent your attacks on religion are.

Originally posted by Travh20
consistantly hypocritical. He thinks we got rid of slavery for a reason other than it was wrong. WTF? Borg, your arguments are stupid. How does a ten commandments statue oppress or insult or terrorize you in anyway? It doesnt, you hate religion and christianity in particular, so the whole separation of church and state argument is a convienient and safe way for you to attack it. I dont see you or other liberals flapping your lips about the left wing kooks trying to obliterate the 2nd ammendment, anyone can see how transparent your attacks on religion are.

Heh, like liberals are the only people for the separation of church and state. The only people who think that's a stupid idea are extreme right wing Christian fundamentalists, a small delusional minority segment of the population.

A Ten Commandment statue placed in a government oppresses us in two major ways.

A) You're using our taxpayer money, not just Christian taxpayer money, to house and promote a religious sect. That is, Roy Mooron is using valuable courtroom space to serve as an altar of sorts for his religion. You build churches to do that with private money; You don't build courtrooms for such a display with taxpayers' money.

B) More importantly, it is using government facilities to promote one religion more than any other religion. How would you like it if the atheist creed were posted in a courthouse? Thou shallt not worship a god, thou shallt not participate in faith-based rituals, etc. I bet you wouldn't like your children reading that very much. And yes, non-Christians ARE forced to at least spend time in the presence of that statue in the courthouse.....most people don't have much choice about coming to a courthouse; it's not a recreational building. "Well, don't read it," you would probably say. Is that a precedent you want to set? That people should ignore signs and statues in a courthouse? No, of course not. That is an unrealistic and rash expectation also.

Athiests creed, LOL, what a joke. WE should remove the 10 commandments from the courthouse, we dont want the poor athiests to be blinded by the very sight of something religious, they may burst into flames. You sound so stupid, I bet at least 7 out of 10 americans believe in god, and the 10 commandments. To deny this countries crhistian heritage and upbringing is just blatent denial. You hate it, so you want it gone, period. YOu selfish bastards hide behind the law when its convienint and gets you what you want, but spit on it and laugh at it when it gets in your way. you are despicalble and very shallow. Your the type who would get in a buldozer and run over a crowd of demonstrators trying to protect the commandments, while at the same time jump isreals ass for killing worthless terrorists. YOu are so fucked in the head, I think you need a shrink.

Originally posted by Travh20
I am saying that our laws, as are all laws of civilized western civilization based on the teachings of the Bible and the 10 commandments. What is so wrong with that?

Nothing wrong. In fact it would be great if this was true. But the major commandment is in contradiction with the death penalty.

"Thou shall not kill"

who made you the expert on what the major comamndment is? Besides, its really supposed to read Thou Shall not Murder. And if you have ever read the bible, there is a thing called eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Think before you go trying to discredit god, the bible and the US government, becasue thats all you ever try to do, thinly veiled behind a supposed respect for the constitution and US Law.

Originally posted by Travh20
Athiests creed, LOL, what a joke. WE should remove the 10 commandments from the courthouse, we dont want the poor athiests to be blinded by the very sight of something religious, they may burst into flames. You sound so stupid, I bet at least 7 out of 10 americans believe in god, and the 10 commandments. To deny this countries crhistian heritage and upbringing is just blatent denial. You hate it, so you want it gone, period. YOu selfish bastards hide behind the law when its convienint and gets you what you want, but spit on it and laugh at it when it gets in your way. you are despicalble and very shallow. Your the type who would get in a buldozer and run over a crowd of demonstrators trying to protect the commandments, while at the same time jump isreals ass for killing worthless terrorists. YOu are so fucked in the head, I think you need a shrink.
You just don't get it do you? You think the fucking Christians should have special rights just because the majority of people in the U.S. are Christian. You act like atheists are an inferior species and don't deserve any rights at all. You are the fucking one who needs a shrink. Asshole.

your right, the majority does have special rights, that why they are called the majority asshole, when the minority starts running the majority, then you have something besides a democracy. when athiests form a country of their own, they can persecute the christians all they want, until then we have freedom of religion in this country. Last I heard athiesm wasnt a religion, so you do not have any rights under freedom of religion, unless you revert back to liberal double speak and call athiesm a religion, which I am sure is next. The religion of athiesm, LOL, classic liberal move!

Originally posted by Travh20
who made you the expert on what the major comamndment is? Besides, its really supposed to read Thou Shall not Murder. And if you have ever read the bible, there is a thing called eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Think before you go trying to discredit god, the bible and the US government, becasue thats all you ever try to do, thinly veiled behind a supposed respect for the constitution and US Law.

Uh, what was it you were saying about reading things into documents that aren't actually there?

Originally posted by Travh20
your right, the majority does have special rights, that why they are called the majority asshole, when the minority starts running the majority, then you have something besides a democracy. when athiests form a country of their own, they can persecute the christians all they want, until then we have freedom of religion in this country. Last I heard athiesm wasnt a religion, so you do not have any rights under freedom of religion, unless you revert back to liberal double speak and call athiesm a religion, which I am sure is next. The religion of athiesm, LOL, classic liberal move!
So thus, atheism must be outlwed! Ah, it all makes so much sense now!

Actually, Trav, why are we even mentioning atheism? That's besides the point. Every religion other than Christianity and Judaism is not being represented. Where are the 12 pillars of Islam? The statue of Vishnu? The wad of chewed Dentyne gum?

no, athiesm shoulnt be outlawed, but athiests shouldnt be able to tell chriostians how to live their lives. And what is your problem with christisnity?

Christians shouldn't be able to tell atheists how to live their lives either. And what is your problem with atheism?

My problem with Christianity? Nothing, as long as you don't become a fanatic like yourself and take the Bible as the perfect word of God, which it isn't.

And if you have ever read the bible, there is a thing called eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
That's the code of Hamorabi. And if you ever read the bible, the old testament contradicts itself with the new, thats why in my religion, there are actually two gods in the bible(more exist though). Demuirge which is the god of the old testament, egotistical, ignorant, and cruel. And Sophia, which is latin for knowledge, philosophy id dirived from her name, philo-love, sophia-wisdom, knowledge.

Alright, you little republican. Majority rules, yeah that works :rolleyes:. The majority is stupid. If you went by exactly what the majority went all of the time, we'd be mindless zombies riding hummers and taking over small defensless countries, wait, that already exists... damn. Democracy makes the big guys comfy, and throws the little guy in the gutter. The point when this country was founded was equality, the little guy having as much say as the big guy. So, techincally their plan wasnt a true republic, or a democracy. And Seperation of Church and state, is in the bill of rights.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
So thus, atheism must be outlwed! Ah, it all makes so much sense now!

Actually, Trav, why are we even mentioning atheism? That's besides the point. Every religion other than Christianity and Judaism is not being represented. Where are the 12 pillars of Islam? The statue of Vishnu? The wad of chewed Dentyne gum? Where were these religions when we formed this country Borg? The answer would be, included within the term God. When you say "In God We Trust", it is inclusive. At least it is IMO. Maybe others dont feel the same way, but we are all allowed that right of opinion. Why do you insist on putting religion down at every opportunity? Why are you so threatened by God? Where is your hatred coming from?

Originally posted by Blibblob
And if you have ever read the bible, there is a thing called eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
That's the code of Hamorabi. And if you ever read the bible, the old testament contradicts itself with the new, thats why in my religion, there are actually two gods in the bible(more exist though). Demuirge which is the god of the old testament, egotistical, ignorant, and cruel. And Sophia, which is latin for knowledge, philosophy id dirived from her name, philo-love, sophia-wisdom, knowledge.

Alright, you little republican. Majority rules, yeah that works :rolleyes:. The majority is stupid. If you went by exactly what the majority went all of the time, we'd be mindless zombies riding hummers and taking over small defensless countries, wait, that already exists... damn. Democracy makes the big guys comfy, and throws the little guy in the gutter. The point when this country was founded was equality, the little guy having as much say as the big guy. So, techincally their plan wasnt a true republic, or a democracy. And Seperation of Church and state, is in the bill of rights. It must be tough to be 15 years old and have all the answers in life. You must bear the weight of the world on your shoulders. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Travh20
who made you the expert on what the major comamndment is? Besides, its really supposed to read Thou Shall not Murder.


Sorry Travh, I had not been informed that you were the real expert here, since you seem entitled to rewrite the Bible.

why dont you go find out for yourself, or will the truth smash your fragile dream world you have construsted to make yourself always appear to be right?

Tavh and Havok I understand how important the church was back in the good ole day. Yes you are correct to say that the church had alot of influence on laws. Don't you agree that we need to change with the times, there is no way we will ever go back to thinking the way we did 200 years ago. For starters lets take born agains and how they interpret the bible, lets take one religion compared to another. How many good Christians don't believe in the death penalty compared to how many did back then. How many sins are most Christians involved in today compared to yesteryear. I hope you can see what I'm trying to say, times, people, events, thoughts, etc... change. Take the average church goer of today and set them next to a church goer of yesteryear. I bet the modern Christian would look like the devil himself. fancy home, big truck, boat, snowmobile, motorcycle, no garden, just plain wastefull. I believe the church did have a huge influence on our laws but times are changing. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone went to the same church, never committed any crimes etc... Well that might have been close at one time but it is far away now. Heck just look at population, back in the 80's there were 4- 4 1/2 billion humans now we are over 6 billion. Back in the 1700's there were even less so of course laws religion etc... were closer then they are now. But they also would have told you you were nuts if you said you could fly.

look, gradual change is one thing, and always has and always will happen, no one is denying that mad Dog. But when change happens to rapidly, and certain groups want to sever all ties to the past, that is where the problem comes in. You see, liberals want to throw caution to the wind and let the chips fall where they may, if their theroys and ideas dont work, they have no back up plan. And let me tell you, their ideas will never work because they go against human nature itself. Now conservative are for change too, but we want to foundation to remain. The foundation in the case of our government and laws is the bible and the ten commandments. These have bought us this far, and will take us the rest of the way. The liberals want to take god out of our lives, then our guns. They laugh at people who say this, but its a nervous laugh becasue they know that its true.

No one wants to take God out of anyone's life, just out of the government. But of course if you admitted that you wouldn't have anything to get all bent out of shape about.

I'm almost to the point where I think we should allow the church and government to mix. The fundamentalists would be happy for a few days until they start fighting over each other about who gets to decide which version of Christianity they use. A year later everyone would realize the wisdom of keeping the government out of the ministry business.