View Full Version : Ten Commandments and the Supreme Court
I think this has been discussed her before but I am not sure...
Does anyone else here find the posting of the ten commandments or other religious symbols in courthouses appalling?
For the life of me I can't understand how someone would support this. For the those who support such a position would you be comfortable being judged in a court where there were religious symbols displayed from a faith that varied greatly from your own?
andyfox
03-03-2005, 03:06 PM
"Does anyone else here find the posting of the ten commandments or other religious symbols in courthouses appalling?"
Me. Then again, I find "In God We Trust" on our coins appalling. But the last sentence of your post shows why the Ten Commandments in court issue is much more important.
Richard Tanner
03-03-2005, 03:23 PM
I don't find it apalling, just a little scary. Now, the first time that my judge says, "Before I sentence you, I'd like to reference Psalms 49" I'm going to be apalled.
Cody
jaxmike
03-03-2005, 03:26 PM
I find both of your oppositions to these things appalling. There is not anything wrong with these things being displayed. There is a basis for them to be displayed. The fact that are whole system of government and law is based on these ideals and priciples means that they are indeed important.
[ QUOTE ]
For the life of me I can't understand how someone would support this. For the those who support such a position would you be comfortable being judged in a court where there were religious symbols displayed from a faith that varied greatly from your own?
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't suprise me that you can't see why others would support it. You clearly have no concept of history, government, law, or tradition if you cannot see why. I don't think its a problem if I don't committ a crime. I think that because God and the Ten Commandments are so important to our nation and our founding I think its only right that there be some representation of them in the courts and other government buildings. I DO NOT, on the other hand, think there should be any establishment of religion by Congress.
jaxmike
03-03-2005, 03:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't find it apalling, just a little scary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Scary how? Most people in the US believe in God.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, the first time that my judge says, "Before I sentence you, I'd like to reference Psalms 49" I'm going to be apalled.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that would be a big deal as long as the trial and sentencing were done by the law.
Richard Tanner
03-03-2005, 04:26 PM
"Scary how? Most people in the US believe in God."
Well, I'm an athiest, so if I see a symbol of a certain religion in a place that is supposed to be impartial, I'm a little worried as to the fairness of my trial.
"I don't think that would be a big deal as long as the trial and sentencing were done by the law."
I think it should be pretty obvious that I was implying that the judge would take sentencing guidelines from the Bible. If he doens't, well then yes, it would be fine.
Cody
andyfox
03-03-2005, 04:26 PM
I didn't say that the ideals and principles in the ten commandments weren't important. Just that they have no place in our government's courts of law. That the framers thought the ten commandments were important and that they were religious has no bearing on the issue. That was 1789; it's now 2005. They also owned slaves in 1789. Our views of what is right and wrong, proper and improper, have changed. One can argue that slavery was much more important to the framers than the ten commandments, inasmuch as it was included in the Constitution. The fact that is was important to them doesn't mean it should be a part of our court system. With the ten commandments in a courthosue, we would have something from the Bible of the Christians and Jews in our courts. The courts are supposed to apply equal justice to all citizens, including even those who are not Christians or Jews.
"I don't think its a problem if I don't committ a crime."
-It's not just people who commit crimes who go into a courtroom.
"You clearly have no concept of history, government, law, or tradition if you cannot see why"
-While Utah and I have often disagreed on policy issues, and while he needs no defense from me, I can assure you he has an extensive knowledge of, and his given substantial thought to, American history, government, law and tradition.
jaxmike
03-03-2005, 04:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm an athiest, so if I see a symbol of a certain religion in a place that is supposed to be impartial, I'm a little worried as to the fairness of my trial.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why worry? God is the basis of law in the US. The law says you are to be given a fair trial. The court room is impartial, or at least it doesnt really care if you are an atheists.
[ QUOTE ]
I think it should be pretty obvious that I was implying that the judge would take sentencing guidelines from the Bible. If he doens't, well then yes, it would be fine.[ QUOTE ]
The judge can base his sentencing guidlines on whatever he wants. Of course, he has to follow the law on the type of sentence he hands out. Understand that most crimes have strict rules upon what sentence can be handed down due to a convition. Thus, even if he does go to the Bible for the sentence, hes still doing it through the law. I have no problem with that.
andyfox
03-03-2005, 04:53 PM
"God is the basis of law in the US."
Please explain.
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else here find the posting of the ten commandments or other religious symbols in courthouses appalling?
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
Scary - again, No.
Expected - Yes.
Many of these monuments are a hold over from promotional activities by Ceil B. DeMille for the movie 'The Ten Commendments', one of the best bombastic comedies of all time by the way.
See the important following link: Debra Paget (http://www.moviestore.com/Photos/T103389_B74924.html)
And this one also, can you say boob-o-lious Rack'em up! (http://www.moviestore.com/Photos/P201556_B74926.html)
There are many formidable things wrong with the Politics Forum, but the top one is the twisted sense of priorities so predominately display by so many posters.
Let's all try to keep our eyes on what is truly important.
-Zeno
jaxmike
03-03-2005, 05:04 PM
omfg do i have to give a history lesson.
fine.
US law is based on English Common law (except in Louisiana where it is based on French law) which is based on the Bible. The founding documents of our nation are literally dripping with the mention of God. God is what this entire nation was founded upon. God is the basis of this nation, its laws, and its people. Like it or not.
[ QUOTE ]
"God is the basis of law in the US."
Please explain.
[/ QUOTE ]
Big mistake Andy.
-Zeno
jesusarenque
03-03-2005, 05:43 PM
There is a big difference in mentioning God and supporting a specific sect (Protestantism) of a particular religion (Christianity). It may be true that most Americans believe in God, but most are not Protestants. Thats why I am against the Ten Commandments being displayed in the courtroom. That is endorsment of a specific religion. I don't have much of a problem with coins saying In God We Trust.
jaxmike
03-03-2005, 05:49 PM
wrong, the majority of americans are protestants. (presbetirian, lutheran, baptist, etc.)
the ten commandments are not an endorsement of a specific religion either, the simple fact is that the ten commandments are integral to the jewish, christian, and i believe the muslim (but not 100% sure) religions.
jesusarenque
03-03-2005, 05:53 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
wrong, the majority of americans are protestants. (presbetirian, lutheran, baptist, etc.)
the ten commandments are not an endorsement of a specific religion either, the simple fact is that the ten commandments are integral to the jewish, christian, and i believe the muslim (but not 100% sure) religions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. While different sects may endorse a ten commandments, the Catholic TC is different from the Protestant TC which is different from the Jewish TC. Putting the Protestant TC up endorses Protestantism specifically.
jaxmike
03-03-2005, 05:59 PM
Wow, I didn't know the Ten Commandments, which are listed in the Old Testament of the Bible used by all the Abrahamic religions as AT LEAST important literature in their religion differed from religion to religion.
jesusarenque
03-03-2005, 06:00 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Wow, I didn't know the Ten Commandments, which are listed in the Old Testament of the Bible used by all the Abrahamic religions as AT LEAST important literature in their religion differed from religion to religion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup. They do.
jaxmike
03-03-2005, 06:02 PM
no, they dont.
EDIT: Sorry, this is not necessarily true. There are some stylistic differences between how the commandments are presented. However, these differences really do not take away from the meaning of the commandments.
Examples...
The Catholic, Protestant, and Hebrew versions all have individual commandments for
1.) thou shall not kill
2.) thou shall not steal
3.) thou shall not committ adultery
4.) thou shall not take the name of the Lord in vain
5.) honor thy father and thy mother
6.) thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor
7.) and to keep the Sabbath day Holy
the differences mainly come here
in Protestant religions the other three commandments are
1.) thou shall have no other god before me
2.) thou shall not create images... etc..
3.) thou shall not covet thy neighbors....
in Catholisism they are
1.) i am the lord thy God and thou shall not have strange gods before me (iow- this encompases 1 and 2 of the protestant)
2.)thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife (expands into 2 what was 1 in protestant)
3.) thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods (expands into 2 what was 1 in protestant)
in Hebrew they are
1.) I am the Lord thy God
2.) the idol one
3.) the coveting the neighbor stuff (wife/goods)
i also understand that protestant came about last, so dont get into symantecs about how they broke off from catholics as i led on in the section on differences...
in conclusion, they are the same basically, though worded SLIGHTLY differently.
jesusarenque
03-03-2005, 06:04 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
no, they dont.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is a fact that they do. I was raised Protestant before converting to Catholicism. Look it up.
jesusarenque
03-03-2005, 06:09 PM
http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Bible%20Studies/10%20Commandments.htm
I find it appalling.
I have no problem whatsoever with someone putting a granite block of the Ten Commandments on their front lawn. That's their private property. But if you put the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse, then you are tacitly supporting the religions that treat the Ten Commandments as sacred(Christianity, Judaism, etc).
jaxmike
03-03-2005, 06:37 PM
they have every right to support it. the only body in government that does not have the right to explicitly come out and endorse a religion is Congress, and thats ONLY by law.
andyfox
03-03-2005, 07:02 PM
Where in the Constitution is god mentioned? I thought the framers wanted people to be in charge of their polity, not god.
andyfox
03-03-2005, 07:06 PM
Should we enact laws punishing taking the lord's name in vain, or not honoring the sabbath? Should proscriptions about those activities be displayed in our courts?
jaxmike
03-03-2005, 07:08 PM
I said the founding documents not the Constitution. The constitution is the framing document of the government. God is mentioned in the Declaration and the word Lord (in reference to God) appears in the Constitution though.
jaxmike
03-03-2005, 07:09 PM
thats not the point. the point is that the Congress CAN'T pass those laws under the Constitution.
andyfox
03-03-2005, 07:11 PM
The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. We're talking about what government can and can't do and what it should and shouldn't do. Nobody denies that Thomas Jefferson believed in god.
jaxmike
03-03-2005, 07:17 PM
the DOI is the founding document of this nation.
the Constitution is the framing document of our Government.
See the difference?
The only restriction on Religion ever mentioned is that "Congress shall make no LAW respecting an esablishment of religion". End of story.
MMMMMM
03-03-2005, 07:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else here find the posting of the ten commandments or other religious symbols in courthouses appalling?
[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
No.
Scary - again, No.
Expected - Yes
...
-Zeno
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with Zeno.
TransientR
03-03-2005, 08:01 PM
Don't be sure that isn't next /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Frank
Voltorb
03-03-2005, 08:15 PM
They should also display all those prohibitions listed by Leviticus. Maybe the quote from Jesus about rendering to Caeser what is Caeser's. Perhaps then the display would come closer to approaching the absurd number of laws and regulations on the books in this country. Where in the ten commandments does it say "Thou shalt not smoke weed." Maybe the ten commandments formed the basis of our laws in the past, but they have since been crushed into oblivion by the ridiculous laws on the books today.
I really have no problem with a courthouse displaying the ten commandments, I just think its stupid. You might as well remind the defendant that if he is found guilty, Santa's got his double checked list of people not to bring toys to this year.
"The only restriction on Religion ever mentioned is that "Congress shall make no LAW respecting an esablishment of religion". End of story. "
No. Not really. The law is not that simple. The constitution says free speech shall not be inpinged and the constitution offers zero exceptions. Yet, we restrict speech many many ways.
You can look at this as whether it should be law or as whether it is a violation of current law. Regardless of current law, it should be against the law to display such symbols.
It is simply tyranny of the majority.
wacki
03-03-2005, 09:25 PM
Dead, If you are going to use Kerry as an avatar, please use this:
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/16041.jpg
Thankyou,
wacki
Wacki,
No.
Best wishes,
Dead
lastchance
03-04-2005, 12:11 AM
As someone who doesn't believe in god, I don't find it appaling, because it is to be expected, but I do find it incredibly scary.
lmao. Leave him alone. I dont want to see Wellstone come back!
bholdr
03-04-2005, 12:40 AM
...No, you're not, and i don't want to be judged by the standards that some silly cult hold based on a thousands-of-years-old religious document. I want to be judged on the merits of my actions.
I will admit that christianity is a big part of america's heritage, and an important and benificial part, but it's 2005, fer crying out loud! I don't want our laws and our judges using the ten commandments to intimidate persons of other faiths in courthouses and other government buildings. I don't want this for the exact same reason I don't want an islamic state established in iraq based on islamic law.
bholdr
03-04-2005, 12:43 AM
... and that patrick henry, benjamin franklin, and other very important early american statesmen DID NOT.
the founders based their laws on respect and tolerance for differences of opinion.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 10:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No. Not really. The law is not that simple. The constitution says free speech shall not be inpinged and the constitution offers zero exceptions. Yet, we restrict speech many many ways.
[/ QUOTE ]
Read it again, the assurance of free speech is limited in the Constitution.
[ QUOTE ]
You can look at this as whether it should be law or as whether it is a violation of current law. Regardless of current law, it should be against the law to display such symbols.
[/ QUOTE ]
It should not be against the law at all, there is nothing at all wrong with it.
[ QUOTE ]
It is simply tyranny of the majority.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hardly see any tyranny in it.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 10:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
...No, you're not, and i don't want to be judged by the standards that some silly cult hold based on a thousands-of-years-old religious document. I want to be judged on the merits of my actions.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have no choice. Funny how you call Christianity a cult. The fact that its the largest religion on the planet is even funnier. Funnier still, is the fact that just about half the planet believes in the exact same God.
[ QUOTE ]
I will admit that christianity is a big part of america's heritage, and an important and benificial part, but it's 2005, fer crying out loud!
[/ QUOTE ]
And that means what?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want our laws and our judges using the ten commandments to intimidate persons of other faiths in courthouses and other government buildings. I don't want this for the exact same reason I don't want an islamic state established in iraq based on islamic law.
[/ QUOTE ]
To think that these are being used as intimidation is absurd. Grow up and grow a spine.
Voltorb
03-04-2005, 10:43 AM
I agree with you, Jaxmike, that posting the ten commandments is not being intentionally used to intimidate people. But the question remains, what are the ten commandments being posted in a courthouse doing? What purpose do they serve? The only reason I can discern, is that they are posted to educate those who enter the court of the historical evolution of this nation's laws from biblical edicts. Does this in any way serve the purpose of the court?
What I don't understand, in this situation, are those who argue in favor of keeping such things posted in courthouses and other federal buildings. I personally do not care either way. But I see no positive value in doing so, only negative value from offending those who may view such postings as offensive to their religion, or even lack thereof. If it offends people, and serves no functional purpose for the building in which it is posted, take it down.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 11:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, Jaxmike, that posting the ten commandments is not being intentionally used to intimidate people. But the question remains, what are the ten commandments being posted in a courthouse doing? What purpose do they serve? The only reason I can discern, is that they are posted to educate those who enter the court of the historical evolution of this nation's laws from biblical edicts. Does this in any way serve the purpose of the court?
[/ QUOTE ]
Some people want to post them. They think its important that they be there due to our history. I think its reasonable, while at the same time thing other things that have a positive message would also be reasonable whether they be Christian or not.
[ QUOTE ]
What I don't understand, in this situation, are those who argue in favor of keeping such things posted in courthouses and other federal buildings. I personally do not care either way. But I see no positive value in doing so, only negative value from offending those who may view such postings as offensive to their religion, or even lack thereof. If it offends people, and serves no functional purpose for the building in which it is posted, take it down.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have absolutely no right not to be offended. This has been repeatedly upheld in the courts over the years. You do not have the right to sue because you are offended. Basically, this is turning into a tyranny of the MINORITY who for some reason feel like they need to attack religion because they have none of their own or something. I simply cannot understand why God is such a threat to some people.
"I simply cannot understand why God is such a threat to some people."
It's not so much God as the people who believe in God that are the problem. You know, kind of the gun control debate idea. "God doesn't kill people, people who believe in God kill people." That kind of idea. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Voltorb
03-04-2005, 11:43 AM
Some people might want to have the hallways of every federal building in the nation plastered with pictures of cuddly puppies and kittens. Others might think its important for promoting a jovial work atmosphere, and could have many positive effects for the mental well being of government employees. Others might point out that it is simply an expression of the historical partnership mankind has shared with these creatures. They may even decide that placing pictures of hamsters up would be okay too.
This does not make plastering the hallway of every federal building with pictures of cuddly puppies and kittens necessary. In fact, pretty much every one would agree that this is a stupid idea, which is exactly how I feel about the ten commandments being posted in courthouses. It indulges one group of people to their satisfaction, at the expense of other groups who take offense. It only serves the purpose of satisfying those who desire it, while having no useful purpose to the court.
If one has absolutely no right to not be offended, then lets do away with the FCC regulations concerning pornography and adult language. Let's end all this discussion about banning gay marriages, and allow any ordained minister of a church that wants to marry homosexuals marry them. Lets do away with all public indecency laws while we're at it.
You are right. I have no right not to be offended, because I am the type of person whose right it is for others to shove their idea of God in front of my face in court, whose right it is to be forced to do what others want me to do regarding language and decency, and whose right it is to leave others perplexed when I attempt to tyranize them with my minority viewpoints.
"Read it again, the assurance of free speech is limited in the Constitution"
Ah, no. You might want to take another look at it. There are no exceptions in the amendment.
"I hardly see any tyranny in it."
Of course not. You agree with it. I do wonder if you would feel the same way if you were being judged by a court that had devil worship symbols on the wall and the judge was wearing a devil worship pin and you were being judged on a case involving christianity.
"Some people want to post them. They think its important that they be there due to our history. "
Sorry, I will have to call bullshit on that one. There are a ton of historical items and none are being displayed in courtrooms. For example, do courts in Mass. have symbols of witch burnings?
It is a distinctly religious symbol being used for a distinctively religous purpose. I dont have as big of problem with religious objects being displayed on public property if they are truly historical.
However, placing the ten comandments (a group of laws) in the court is sending a specific message that this court is being guided by religon. Lets not kid ourselves as to the intent. Did you happen to notice that those wanting to post these laws are not groups of avid historians but rather groups of devote Christians?
"I simply cannot understand why God is such a threat to some people."
Maybe because 10s to 100s of millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of God. Even more have been repressed or tortured due to God an religion. Nothing on this planet has caused more suffering than the notion of God and religion.
Just a crazy guess.
Analyst
03-04-2005, 03:17 PM
I'm a great believer in the principal of separation of religion and state. The phrasing of the establisment clause - respecting an establishment of religion - seems quite clear.
That said, if the commandments are included as part of a larger display in an appropriate context, such as in the Supremen Court, then I don't have much problem with it. Judge Moore, on the other hand, got exactly what he deserved.
Analyst
03-04-2005, 03:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
the ten commandments are not an endorsement of a specific religion either
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, completely, totally wrong.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 03:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, no. You might want to take another look at it. There are no exceptions in the amendment.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, you are granted the freedom of speech from the government. That does not mean that you can say anything you want and there not be repricussions.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course not. You agree with it. I do wonder if you would feel the same way if you were being judged by a court that had devil worship symbols on the wall and the judge was wearing a devil worship pin and you were being judged on a case involving christianity.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are missing the point. The point is that the law is the law, and the fact that the Ten Commandments are posted is irrelevant. The fact is that if we did live in a nation that had the majority of the population worshiping Lucifer and the laws were based on that then I would have to live under those laws as a citizen of that country. Long story short, the Ten Commandments are not a threat to you if you do not believe in them.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 03:47 PM
which one specific religion then genius?
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 03:48 PM
a gun has never killed anyone. someone using it has.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 03:49 PM
do you not understand that Christianity is the basis for our laws?
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 03:53 PM
This I COULD agree with. However, I don't think that hanging the Ten Commandments in a courtroom is approaching what you describe.
poker-penguin
03-04-2005, 03:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
a gun has never killed anyone. someone using it has.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, guns kill very few people (a few brutal pistol whippings a year). It's the bullets we've got a problem with. Screw gun control. We need bullet control.
[with apologies to Chris Rock, or whoever it was]
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 03:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a great believer in the principal of separation of religion and state.
[/ QUOTE ]
My favorite argument for something that simply does not exist.
[ QUOTE ]
The phrasing of the establisment clause - respecting an establishment of religion - seems quite clear.[\quote]
So does the part you intentionally leave out... "Congress shall make no law"
[ QUOTE ]
That said, if the commandments are included as part of a larger display in an appropriate context, such as in the Supremen Court, then I don't have much problem with it. Judge Moore, on the other hand, got exactly what he deserved.
[/ QUOTE ]
How so? I think he was treated completely unfairly and, in my opinion, illegally.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 03:57 PM
even with pistol whippings someone is doing it. face it, people kill people.
No, I dont agree. At the heart of it, our laws are derived far more from a social contract theory.
I guess it is where you draw the line. As I said, I dont have a big problem with the display of religous symbols in public and I am not for the banishment of religon from public life.
However, I have a big problem of marrying religous law with secular law. I can think of many types of cases where this religous thinking will affect the rulings. I can easily see a judge say to himself, "i dont care what the law says. I get my laws from God and the bible and I am ruling........"
"No, you are granted the freedom of speech from the government. That does not mean that you can say anything you want and there not be repricussions."
According to the constitution, yes it does. There are no constitutional stipulations where free speech can be violated. If you disagree, please quote from the constitution where free speech can be limited. That should settle things.
I am not saying that speech shouldnt be limited in certain situations, I am just saying the constitution doesnt grant the limiting of speech.
"face it, people kill people."
True, but so? Would you allow individual citizens to own nuclear weapons under the argument,"nuclear weapons dont kill people, people kill people."
[ QUOTE ]
do you not understand that Christianity is the basis for our laws?
[/ QUOTE ]
Even if this were true (I started to debate it but realized it would be futile) our law is not religious law. Our country is not a Christian country even if a majority of people believe in Christianity.
bholdr
03-04-2005, 04:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You have no choice
[/ QUOTE ]
this is an extremly bigoted thing to say.
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that its the largest religion on the planet is even funnier. Funnier still, is the fact that just about half the planet believes in the exact same God.
[/ QUOTE ]
I KNOW!
[ QUOTE ]
To think that these are being used as intimidation is absurd. Grow up and grow a spine.
[/ QUOTE ]
that's an easy thing for a CHRISTIAN to say. kinda intolerant, too.
bholdr
03-04-2005, 04:53 PM
Jaxmike, i suppose you're in favor of establishing an islamic state in iraq? chopping off the hands of theives and honor killing promiscius teenage girls and all that?
that's the logical extension of your argument, since you sem to think it's approiate for a nation to base it's laws upon its predominant religion...
xadrez
03-04-2005, 05:04 PM
how many times can jaxmike be pwned in one thread?
bholdr
03-04-2005, 05:09 PM
he just keeps walking right into the lampost...
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 05:10 PM
the constitution only applies to the federal govenment, and some say, according to the 14th amendment, the states government. 1st amendment does not grant you freedom of speech in the private sector.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 05:12 PM
at the heart of the social contract theory that you are referring is God. God is at the heart of the United States, always has been, hopefully always will be.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 05:13 PM
not by law, no, and thats the beauty of the constitution. I am glad that you realized that debating the origins of our system of law being founded on God would indeed be futile.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 05:15 PM
but that wont happen because the law would allow the decision to be overturned by a higher court if the sentence was not in accordance with the law.
andyfox
03-04-2005, 05:17 PM
An atomic weapon has never killed anyone either. It's the people who used them. So why worry about nuclear bombs?
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 05:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
this is an extremly bigoted thing to say.
[/ QUOTE ]
oh please elaborate on this. there is nothing bigoted about what i wrote. i simply stated that he doesnt have a choice if he wants to be judged on his actions, he will be judged under the system that is in place.
[ QUOTE ]
that's an easy thing for a CHRISTIAN to say. kinda intolerant, too.
[/ QUOTE ]
nothing intolerant about it. i dont mind if you dont believe in God or Christ or Buddah. the fact that you would complain about something like this is pathetic to me. all it is is complaining for the sake of complaining to me.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 05:19 PM
apparently none.
andyfox
03-04-2005, 05:21 PM
Sorry, I posted my nuclear weapons post before seeing yours. Great minds do think alike. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 05:22 PM
ugh. you dont listen or you just dont care.
i simply am stating the fact that the laws we have are BASED on Christianity. That was the impeduce that created them, the framework. i would not mind a government or a set of laws based on Islam so long as it is consistent with freedom.
IE. no honor killings, no cruel and unusual punishment, equal rights for all, etc. etc. etc.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 05:23 PM
because you cannot defend the need for a person to own a nuclear weapon. you can defend the need for a person to own a gun. my God, is everyone so obsessed with taking things to extremes?
andyfox
03-04-2005, 05:26 PM
What our law is founded on is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the framers got their ideas from Chiristianity or from the Iroquois or from John Locke. The fact is that the Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion. It allows private individuals to worship as they see fit. Our courts are public institutions and, by implicitly endorsing laws from the bible, it implicitly endorses the religions that use that bible.
bholdr
03-04-2005, 05:27 PM
straighten out your post so that it's understandable and maybe i'll respond.
andyfox
03-04-2005, 05:30 PM
What difference does the impetus that created our laws matter? While most of the framers were practicing Christians, they saw fit to see that the government they established specifically prohibited the establishment of a Christian state.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 05:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What our law is founded on is irrelevant.
[/ QUOTE ]
I respectfully disagree.
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter whether the framers got their ideas from Chiristianity or from the Iroquois or from John Locke.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that it doesn't in the grand scheme of things matter. However, I would respect the source none the less.
[/ QUOTE ]The fact is that the Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is absolutely correct.
[ QUOTE ]
It allows private individuals to worship as they see fit.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is also absolutely correct.
[ QUOTE ]
Our courts are public institutions...
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct.
[ QUOTE ]
...and, by implicitly endorsing laws from the bible, it implicitly endorses the religions that use that bible.[ QUOTE ]
In a way this is correct (but I do NOT believe to the extent of endorsing a religion as the poster is suggesting), however, the Constitution does not in any way say that this is illegal.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 05:35 PM
I agree they did. Putting the Ten Commandments up in a courtroom does not establish a Christian state.
bholdr
03-04-2005, 05:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
impeduce
[/ QUOTE ]
???
[ QUOTE ]
i would not mind a government or a set of laws based on Islam so long as it is consistent with freedom.
IE. no honor killings, no cruel and unusual punishment, equal rights for all, etc. etc. etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
well, it wouldn't really be based on islam, then, would it? you can't have it both ways. same thing with laws based on christianity. in one post you say this nation's laws are based on christianity, and in the next you're arguing for the restriction of religiously bases laws in the intrest of 'freedom'
ahhh... here we get to the heart of the issue. you don't seem to realize that MANY people in this country, even many christians, find thet the hanging of the ten commandments in courtrooms IS NOT consistant with freedom.
It is, IMO, and establishment of religion, and unconstitutional: the court is establishing a religion by posting a document that explicitly states that it's readers must hold no god before the god of that document. It can be VERY intimidating to persons of minority religions, to walk into a courtroom and know that that court considers (or looks like it does) their religion, beliefs, etc, inferior. That is an infringment on their freedom, wether you, as a christian, can see it or not.
it's hard, sometimes, to empathize with people of other persuasions, but its good for a person to try. you should try.
jaxmike
03-04-2005, 05:42 PM
first, i meant impetus, it was a typo.
now, for the last f'ing time.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Now, if its not congress and its not a law, than its not unconstitutional now STFU.
Analyst
03-04-2005, 05:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a great believer in the principal of separation of religion and state.
[/ QUOTE ]
My favorite argument for something that simply does not exist.
[/ QUOTE ]
You might want to talk to Thomas Jefferson about this.
Analyst
03-04-2005, 05:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree they did. Putting the Ten Commandments up in a courtroom does not establish a Christian state.
[/ QUOTE ]
It lends Christianity the weight of the government. The constitution forbids the government from not only establishing a religion, but any religion whatsoever.
Analyst
03-04-2005, 05:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
which one specific religion then genius?
[/ QUOTE ]
Which version of the ten commandments are you using?
In any case, the constitution, should you chose to read it, prohibits the government from establishing religion per se, not just from promoting any one particular sect over another.
andyfox
03-04-2005, 06:01 PM
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/03-1500/03-1500.mer.pet.pdf
This is the brief for the petitioner in this Ten Commandments case which was argued in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It makes a case for the commandments having no relevance to our laws and not having been important in the construction of our laws. See, in particular, pages 24-26.
BCPVP
03-04-2005, 06:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which one specific religion then genius?
[/ QUOTE ]
Which version of the ten commandments are you using?
In any case, the constitution, should you chose to read it, prohibits the government from establishing religion per se, not just from promoting any one particular sect over another.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what's so hard about this.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
If Congress isn't making a law respecting that religion, it isn't unconstitutional. As long as Congress didn't make a law saying that courts must (or even "should", arguably) have a monument of the Ten Commandments, than I don't see any legal grounds for complaining.
bholdr
03-04-2005, 06:02 PM
You can't seriously think it's that simple? well, appearently you can.
i'm sorry, for you jaxmike. sorry for whatever upbringing that made you the way you are, sorry for your bitter, sad outlook. I'm sorry for what it's done to you, and i'm sorry for what you, in turn, are doing to others as a result.
here's a good book: you should read it, carefully and with an open mind: linky (http://www.cforc.com/kjv/)
i won't be responding to any more of your posts, you're on my whackjob/ ignore list with dr wogga and hack, now.
I am honestly sorry for you, and bear you no malice.
bholdr
03-04-2005, 06:53 PM
you must of forgot to CC the supreme court: appearently they didn't get your memo, and shouldn't even be considering this issue. it's clearly judicial activism at its finest.
IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE! never was, anyone who's studied constitutional law knows as much.
bholdr
03-04-2005, 07:42 PM
...or james madison.
Kurn, son of Mogh
03-04-2005, 08:14 PM
I do. Well, to be specific, the 1st commandment is the one that disqualifies the document from being on public property in the US. Yes, our legal system is based in part on the decalogue, but Commandment One specifically violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
elwoodblues
03-05-2005, 12:30 AM
I think it's funny how many of the commandments are either not illegal or would be unconstitutional, yet people claim them to be foundational to our system of law.
andyfox
03-05-2005, 01:25 AM
From the brief from the Supreme Court case of this week:
[T]he content of the commandments themselves shows that it has little relationship to American secular law. The first four commandments listed – “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images,” “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” – are religious mandates. Any law that imposed these requirements would unquestionably violate the Establishment Clause. As Professor Marci Hamilton explains: “[W]ere the first four commandments enacted into law today, they would constitute plain constitutional violations. It is an exceedingly strange, and strained, argument that argues the primacy of the Ten Commandments as the true source of law when the first four simply cannot be enacted into law, because they would conflict with our Constitution. The first four prove that the Commandments are religious rules, not civil law.” Marci Hamilton, The Ten Commandments and American Law, at
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030911 (September 11, 2003).
Moreover, several of the other commandments have no relationship at all to American law. “Honor thy father and
mother” and “Thy shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor
his manservant, nor his maid servant, nor his cattle, nor
anything that is thy neighbors” are not, and never have
been, legal commands in our legal tradition.
Thus, only a few of the commandments – “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” and “Thou shalt not commit adultery” – have any relationship to American law. But even as to these, the Ten Commandments are not a special source for the American legal rules: virtually every legal
system, before and after the Ten Commandments, prohibits
murder, theft, and perjury. See Steven K. Green, The Fount of Everything Right and Just, 14 J.L. & Religion 525 2000). Indeed, Hammurabi’s Code, often regarded as the first written law, nearly a 1,000 years before the Ten Commandments, contained these prohibitions. The Hammurabi
Code at ix (trans. Chilperic Edwards, 1904) (criticizing
what he calls “arrogant claims in regard to the originality or excellence of the Jewish Pentateuch.”)
. . . a careful review of history shows that the Ten
Commandments were seldom invoked in forming American law. The only explicit connection between the Bible and American law is found in the early Puritan colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Puritans regarded themselves “chosen people” and their land as a “second Israel.” Stephen Botein, Early American Law and Society 25-26 (1983). But even among the Puritans, the influence of Mosaic law on their legal codes was small. See Zechariah Chaffee, Jr., Colonial Courts and the Common Law, Essays in the History of Early American Law 72-73 (D. Flaherty ed., 1969) (“the view that the colonial law was . . . drawn from the Bible is dispelled by a study of the court records .”); George E. Woodbibe, The Suffolk County Court, 1671-1680, Essays in the History of Early American Law 202 (D. Flaherty, ed. 1969) (“Undoubtedly the influence of [Mosaic] law as an active legal force in [Puritan] civilization has been greatly overstated.”)
Nor is there any indication that the Ten Commandments were regarded as a source of secular law in the founding of this nation. They are not mentioned in the records of the constitutional Convention nor in the history of state legislatures drafting their initial statutes. Not once are the Ten Commandments mentioned in the Federalist Papers. After examining the claim that Ten Commandments were a source of American law, Professor Steven Green concludes: “Thus absent a handful of early cases, judicial reliance on the Ten Commandments as a source of law was all but nonexistent. . . . The historical record fails to support claims of a direct relationship between the law and the Ten Commandments. Absent the failed experiment in seventeenth century Massachusetts and other Puritan colonies, American law has generally been viewed as having a secular origin and function.” Green, supra, at 558.
bholdr
03-05-2005, 02:09 AM
thanks andyfox, that's a fantastic post.
jaxmike
03-07-2005, 01:12 PM
no it doesnt. please re read the constitution.
jaxmike
03-07-2005, 01:14 PM
sure man, its not that simple. except the fact that its written out like that.
jaxmike
03-07-2005, 01:14 PM
wrong. re read the constitution.
jaxmike
03-07-2005, 01:15 PM
oh no. i am so sad now. you are ignoring me. whatever shall i do. i guess, as they say, the truth hurts, don't it?
jaxmike
03-07-2005, 01:17 PM
um, yes, where exactly is the term "separation of church and state" in the constitution. I understand the priciple of what is trying to be said. however, the fact is that the document does not say there shall be a separation of church and state.
andyfox
03-07-2005, 01:20 PM
There shall be no law respecting the establishment of a relilgion. Doesn't that mean that the government and religion should be separated, that there should be no endorsement of any religion by the government?
thatpfunk
03-07-2005, 01:53 PM
Why in the world are all of you attempting to appease ONE voice of dissent especially when he is a complete radical nut?
Any rational person...
jaxmike
03-07-2005, 01:56 PM
congress. please quote accurately. congress shall pass no law. thats the key. again, if its not congress, and its not a law, then its not unconstitutional. i would say that a law AGAINST posting it WOULD be unconstitutional before i would say that posting it would be.
You can't just ignore all the Supreme Court cases on point and the 14th Amendment. Which you are doing to formulate a simplistic view of what is happening. The link to the brief Andy posted should be instructive. You won't agree with the brief, but it is a good one. Easy to read and hits the big cases on the issue.
Analyst
03-07-2005, 03:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There shall be no law respecting the establishment of a relilgion.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree with your position, the way the amendment is actually phrased takes, to me, an even stronger position. Written as ". . . respecting the establishment of religion . . . ", not " . . . respecting the establishment of a religion . . ." is a big difference. The founders phrased things very precisely, and the former phrasing (actual text) seems to me to prohibit any religious support as opposed to the latter, which could be more readily interpreted as prohibiting support for a particular sect.
[ QUOTE ]
Which you are doing to formulate a simplistic view of what is happening.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo!
And just for emphasis:
[ QUOTE ]
Which you are doing to formulate a simplistic view of what is happening.
[/ QUOTE ]
This a great synopsis of why many of the initial posts, responses, polls, etc. and etc. on a wide variety of subjects in the politics forum are so slovenly or otherwise irrational.
The world is inherently a messy place for all sorts of reasons. A simplistic view has instant appeal, but rarely is it a practially approach to the complex issues that face humanity and its attempts to govern itself.
-Zeno
Analyst
03-07-2005, 03:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
um, yes, where exactly is the term "separation of church and state" in the constitution. I understand the priciple of what is trying to be said. however, the fact is that the document does not say there shall be a separation of church and state.
[/ QUOTE ]
Jefferson, who was around at the time and as evidenced in his writings, clearly felt that the intent of the first ammendment was to establish this wall of separation, even though the phrase itself is not found verbatim in the Constitution. His opinion seems to differ from yours, but I'll put my money on Jefferson.
jaxmike
03-07-2005, 04:17 PM
the point on this issue is that there is no interpretation that should be going on. there should be no judicial legislation due to the CLEARLY written guidlines. fact is, there is nothing unconstitutional about posting the 10 commandments in a courthouse.
andyfox
03-07-2005, 04:25 PM
The phrase "wall of separation" originates, indeed, with Jefferson, not with Hugo Black.
jaxmike
03-07-2005, 04:27 PM
you are misunderstanding what Jefferson was saying back then. you are using current thoughts to try to justify something that wasnt the thought back then. his case for separation of church and state is completely different from what you are arguing against. his desire was to keep the nation free from a national religion. also to prevent the type of religious fighting that was going on in Europe at the time and prior with respect to the Catholic/Protestant problems. i believe he would be appaled at where his words have been taken if he were alive to voice his views.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.