Steve
Mostly Harmless
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/0...monument-on-steps-oklahoma/?intcmp=latestnews
What do you guys think?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
What do you guys think?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Freedom of religion?
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Here is another extream.
- Do your have right to build?
- Do you have right to destroy?
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag....us.dis_oc._._&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag....us.dis_oc._._&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg
- Do your have right to build?
- Do you have right to destroy?
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag....us.dis_oc._._&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag....us.dis_oc._._&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg
Tgace
Grandmaster
http://aclj.org/church-state/ten-commandments
I suggest you read the entire thing.
The display of the 10 commandments is not necessarily a religious statement in this sort of application...
I suggest you read the entire thing.
The display of the 10 commandments is not necessarily a religious statement in this sort of application...
Last edited:
Unfortunately for them, it will be a lengthy process where their final decision will be to allow the proposed monument or to tear down theirs. I remember a similar case years back, where a group of atheists fought to erect a monument to the flying spaghetti monster right next to a monument of the ten commandments.
First off, I agree with the ten commandments. The rules are good and common sense, and they are the same as the rules followed by many religions. However, the wording and the presentation of the ten commandments is religious in nature. More specifically Christian. And while I doubt many people disagree with the rules presented there, I do not think they have a place on any property relating to law or politics.
They have opened themselves up for this, and while I know the arguments of "They are persecuting Christians by forcing us to allow a different religious monument or tear ours down" will be soon and numerous, the truth is that allowing one group to build a monument means you will have to allow any other recognized religious group to do the same.
However, for the most part I doubt we'll hear much nationally until things get bad. I think it will be years down the road and many legal battles followed by appeals. Just more spending of time and money in our courts over something that should have never been allowed in the first place.
You want a monument to your religion, build it on church property. Or buy land and build it there. Don't do it at a courthouse, or capitol building.
First off, I agree with the ten commandments. The rules are good and common sense, and they are the same as the rules followed by many religions. However, the wording and the presentation of the ten commandments is religious in nature. More specifically Christian. And while I doubt many people disagree with the rules presented there, I do not think they have a place on any property relating to law or politics.
They have opened themselves up for this, and while I know the arguments of "They are persecuting Christians by forcing us to allow a different religious monument or tear ours down" will be soon and numerous, the truth is that allowing one group to build a monument means you will have to allow any other recognized religious group to do the same.
However, for the most part I doubt we'll hear much nationally until things get bad. I think it will be years down the road and many legal battles followed by appeals. Just more spending of time and money in our courts over something that should have never been allowed in the first place.
You want a monument to your religion, build it on church property. Or buy land and build it there. Don't do it at a courthouse, or capitol building.
Tgace
Grandmaster
Are not the 10 Commandments really Jewish?
And as stated above, the USSC has already stated that the display of the 10 is not necessarily religious Per Se as it has a historic role in the foundation of western law.
Nobody is erecting crucifixes on court lawns....
The display of the ten commandments is indeed religious in nature. They didn't erect a monument simply stating do not steal or kill, etc. The statement of laws would be one thing. However, I doubt one could explain it away as laws since it is not against the law to worship a God other than the Christian or Jewish one, which is part of the commandments and that monument.
One could argue the historical value of a monument built at a courthouse in colonial days, but this is recent. So that argument is also out the window.
I understand your argument, but one must also remember that our law was based on common sense as well. Not all of the founding fathers were Christian. Many were, but not all.
The fact is that we can argue all day long about the religious nature of this monument, but if you mention the ten commandments the first thing that comes to mind is religion. A court decision is not always correct, thus the appeals process. It is a mess that will take a while, but one of three things will happen.
1. They will be forced to allow the other monument.
2. They will take down, or move the ten commandments monument.
3. And very likely, they will BS their way around the religious nature of the ten commandments, or totally ignore the fairness of including any religious group OTHER than Christians that want their monument included. Thus once again proving several people, including my own argument AGAINST this dreamed up fantasy of religious persecution against Christians within the USA.
Tgace
Grandmaster
Huh?
PS: It's not "my argument"...the court has held that displays of the 10 are not Per Se religious....
And as I said, the courts are wrong on that. The fact that it includes "Though shalt have no Gods before me." Makes it religious in nature. Just because a court ruling is set forth doesn't make it fact. How many court decisions in the past are unthinkable today based on even moral grounds.
My point is that the "Not religious per se" argument is BS. And it is obviously so. While I can appreciate the influence it had on our Forefathers who WERE Christian, and the fact that those who were not Christian likely had no argument over making it illegal to kill or steal, it is definitely religious in nature.
Tgace
Grandmaster
You are confusing content with intent. Because the word "God" in in the 10 doesn't make it any less a historical (vs religious) item in the history of US Law....and thats how the Court has held it to date. The intent of the display is what matters vs the display iteslf.
Which is a highly debated and argued point. One that not everyone agrees on. And considering the government, including justices in the USSC are predominantly Christian, it doesn't surprise me that it is explained away in a BS way like it has been and likely will continue to be. But covering up BS with more BS doesn't make it smell any better.
I understand what you are trying to say. I really do. And I happen to disagree with it, and the court rulings. I find it to be loophole arguments that I would expect from a junior high school student trying to BS their way through an assigned paper.
That however, has no bearing on the law or court rulings.
But once again, with BS like that excuse allowing Christians to have their monuments and excluding others, it just gives more ammo to point at when laughing at the persecution of Christians argument. Just my opinion, and one shared by quite a few people. We were asked for our opinion in the OP so I gave it.
I support other religious groups getting their own monuments, or no Ten either.
Indeed, which is in itself something I have an issue with.
Tgace
Grandmaster
What is the history of Satanism in relation to civil law? Again there isn't a Crucifix on the lawn..its the 10 Commandments...there's a correlation.
Are not the 10 commandments Hebrew/Jewish in terms of history?
Who are "they" and how are they insulting Christians?
And once again, not all of the founding fathers were even religious at all. Many were atheist or Deist. So while the Ten Commandments could have had an influence on our law, I doubt the validity of an argument that it was the whole basis. I seem to remember the Constitution giving freedom of religion, which is in direct contradiction with the Ten Commandments.
Tgace
Grandmaster
I dont believe the faith of the FF enters into this much....the history of the courts and the historic development of Western Law is not hinged on the faith of the FF.
And the whole "the FF were deists" is greatly overplayed.
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Resources/Quotes.aspx
Perhaps, but I believe the Ten Commandments being the whole basis of our law to be severely overplayed as well. As I said, our Constitution gives us the freedom to practice our religion as we see fit, if at all. The Ten commandments however say that is a no no. And the other parts such as don't kill, don't steal are common sense and are generally accepted laws in all cultures even predating the Ten Commandments.
Don't covet thy neighbors goods? Shows up nowhere in our laws. WE'RE CAPITALISTS. Our society is kind of BASED on seeing our neighbors with something, wanting it, and buying it ourselves...
Not cheating on your spouse? Yeah, it was and technically still is against the law. But nobody ever paid all that much attention to that one.
Honoring your mother and father... Yep... Plenty of kids in jail for backtalk, all throughout history....
See where I'm going with this? The value of such a document in our law is seriously played up for the BS argument to keep the monuments.
I'm sure it was an influence, but overall not the huge one it is made out to be.
