Saying that men are endowed with certain rights by their Creator doesn't have anything at all to do with the 10 comandments. I do believe in the Declaration of independence and agree that ALL men have been endowed with certain rights by their creator. If you disagree with that and how it applies to Gitmo prisoners feel free to argue in that thread. Calling it weak here, does little to refute the logic involved in the argument about believing in those words from our declaration of independence. Can you show me which laws in our nation our based on which ones of the 10 comandments? I mentioned the only two that I believe there are, and pointed out that they were around prior to the 10 comandments. Because the declaration uses rights that our nations founders believed were endowed to ALL men by their creator doesn't equal the 10 comandments are the foundation of nations legal system. Saying that men are endowed with rights by a creator, and saying that our nations laws were based on the 10 comandments are the same thing, doesn't make sense. But again, I will concede the point to you if you can show me which of the comandments correspond to which of our laws.
Not only are they on display in front of a court of law, they are etched in FREAKING GRANITE on the walls of the Supreme Court of the United States. This is a clue people. I guess we could either raze the thing to the ground, or get over it. She sued...query: what are her damages? In what way has she been cognizably injured?
Sheesh, what a concept! Look, to be totally honest, I couldn't give a sweet rats ass if it was a Bible or the freakin' Koran in front of the courthouse. To me, it's completly beside the point. The thing that bothers me is that someone was so offended (since when is it against the law to offend someone?) that they would actually file a lawsuit to have it removed. This just baffles me to no end. I see things that offend me every minute of every day and I have yet to hire a lawyer. I usually do what most sane people do which is to just shake my head, say something to myself, and MOVE ON with the rest of my day (and life).
Where they are on display next to friezes of Solon, Confucious, and other early philospoher/legal scholars, not standing alone as a garish i religious icon (in violation of one of the commandments, of course) in the case of Roy Moore's phallus -- err, statute. Or you could try to understand the context and the default legal rules surrounding displays of religious things on public property; see above. Does it matter? She has standiing obviously as a citizen of the county; The government can't violate the constitution and say "oh, well didn't cost anybody nothing, so its ok"
You really think it's garish? Grow up. Seriously. More importantly, when the Supreme Court opens session, the courtroom deputy will say "Hear ye , hear ye, hear ye...the Supreme Court of the United States is now in session. God save the United States and this Honorable Court." I guess we should lock them all up, huh? Oh...and it was a statue...a STATUTE is a law enacted by the legislature. You could try learning a little bit about Constitutional law. Then you might realize these are not "default rules." Banning religious symbols on public land is pretty new actually. Of course it matters. You might want to check the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as relevant sections of the United States Code dealing with ripeness and standing. In particular, look for cases dealing with a "case in controversy." OK...off to bed. I have to get up and practice law in the morning.
Isn't this bible in question in a memorial to a man that started star of hope or something like that? I thought that this was a memorial to a christian man who did good things, not a political statement. If it was a memorial to a Muslim man who did something good for the city, then I wouldn't mind if they had a Koran or something in it.
It's not hypocritical. These are the values and principles that were held by the people who founded this nation. Our institutions are (or were) imbued with those values and principles. It is best not to forget those roots. These attempts to root out these symbols are but a first dangerous step in distancing ourselves from those values and principles. What then happens to those institutions which have survived and thrived for a couple of centuries ongoing?
What does being offensive have to do with anything? I dont know of any law that is based on being offended by something. If I am offended by your posting can I sue to have you removed from the board? If I am offended by the clothes a woman is wearing, can I sue to have her remove them ? . Dont distract the issue with debate about an individual's personal feelings - It holds no merit.
If you are offended by something that is prohibited (sexual advances, crude humor, or derogatory comments by coworkers for example) then you can sue. In this case, the constitution is being interpreted in such a way that precludes religious displays on public property, and as such, people have the right to sue to have those displays removed. As we become more diverse religiously, some things will have to change since the founders put that pesky church/state stuff in the Bill of Rights. You can fight against it if you like, but you are fighting a battle you will lose.
Giddyup, I am not trying to argue the roots of various government institutions. However, I do think that most modern american christians are hypocritical to a certain extent. I grew up in a very conservative family (several of my Aunt's are members of the christian coalition) and have seen this hypocrisy time and time again. Christianity is now more than ever being used as an excuse to be prejudiced. Every time I go to church (to make my mom happy) I am inundated with hatred for homosexuals and abortionists, and a burning desire to turn this country into a theocracy. This judgmental attitude is ludicrously un-christian. We are all sinners, and people who point out one sin as worse than another, or blame them for chatastophes (a la Falwell) are the modern day equivalent of Pharisees. Instead of reaching out, they condemn. How hypocritical - after all, WWJD? To get back to the topic, I think this attitude is the product of a political agenda being pushed by christian groups backed with church dogma. Thus, we have conservative christian groups trying to keep what they don't think is "right" off the TV, trying to keep people they don't like from getting married, while at the same time crying foul anytime "christian" activities are similarly restricted. Hypocrisy. So, over christmas, when my ultra-right-wing aunt was complaining about people restricting nativity scenes on public property it was all I could do to hold my tongue. Sorry to get off topic.
Funny, been going to a large Christian church for about 5 year now, and have never seen the hatred for homosexuals ar abortionists you speak of ???? We are always taught to reach out and not condemn.
Come on, most of the media is so biased against Christians it isn’t even funny. Most of them love to air / print anything negative they can find. Unfortunately, this is what the general public always sees. Hardly ever hear about the great things the Christian community is doing for people here and around the world.
Wow you nailed me on that type-o refman. I'm stone cold busted. If you don't think a 3 ton replica of the ten commandments is garish then I have mercy on your lack of taste. Otherwise. Well it's new to you but not to anybody with any background in the area. You could try learining about that If you'd read the relevant opinions in any of the cases in the area, and I'm imagining that you haven't, you'd realize that the default rule is generally whether or not the religious symbol is being presented in a religious or a historical/secular context. Hence the display outside the Supreme Court is acceptable (under say, the standard used in Glassroth v. Moore), while a giant stand alone statue of the 10 commandments is not acceptable. Oh, really? Which Rule defines the substantive damages requirements to bring an establishment clause action? I never learned that one. As I said before, taxpayer standing is generally enough in these kinds of cases. Hopefully not in establishment clause cases.
Not true. Did you even real my super long ass post? Did anyone? (I knew I should of cut that down a bit, but it was too good) So as a loving, superior, Christian, "I DAMN THEE!" (Why do people want this removed again?)
Meowgi -- Without getting into the bigger argument at hand...I hear the deism thing a lot. I hear it said about George Washington as well. I have a hard time buying that, given what I understand about deism and Washington's own writings. My understanding is that deism sets up a God that is distant and has no place in day to day human affairs...sort of a distant watcher. Washington commented over and over again about the Hand of Providence and it guiding the men of his day. He felt God interceded in battles to help liberty prevail. There are countless letters where he writes that. I can tell you definitively that John Quincy Adams was not a deist, simply by reading his letters where he spoke of God...and even of Christ!!! He wrote hymns about the Trinity. http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/l/a/laworlds.htm James Madison was an Episcopalian...a member of the Anglican Church of America. "We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."- James Madison. Remember, James Madison is called, "The Father of the Constitution." I don't know a ton about Ben Franklin...but my understanding is that he was still a Quaker at his death. Hardly a religious man, as I understand it, however. I have no problem calling Jefferson a deist...at times...an atheist at other times. He went back and forth during his life. Allen was certainly not a Christian or Jew or Muslim or any other such thing...he was very vocal in challenging religion. As an aside...I know Joseph Campbell is considered genuis by some. I see him quoted quite a bit here. I find him to be spotty, at best, with glaring inaccuracies made in order to further an agenda, it seems. It's controversial...and that sells. But it seems less than honest to me, at times. Inconsistent...as noted above. I don't know how, in good faith, you can make an argument that James Madison or John Quincy Adams, in particular, were deists. Deists don't write hymns about Christ that are still sung in churches today.
