While I have no problem with the monument being where it was placed by the judge and still believe many are too easily "offended" that perhapse the monument "sends the wrong message" the judge has no right to furnish the public space as he wishes. I believe he is creating a lot of noise by not removing the monument. Noise that is just not important in any sense. I think it is nice that he takes a stand for God but I must say the monument is not the only way for him to take a stand for God. The United States while it may have some Christian inspired history is a pluralistic democracy which does not guarantee the judge a right to furnish a public place as he wishes as I said above. I think the judge should understand this and remove the monument. I realize he has created a following of some supporters and all and to them I would suggest that this monument is not vital in any way for them to practice their faith or live their lives. In practice if a person wants to live a life of faith and live by the teachings of the Bible they have unlimited access to a copy of the Bible and a wide selection of Churches to attend if they so wish. Again to close I have no problem with the monument where it is but at the same time the judge has no right to furnish a public place as he wishes be it related to religious text or not.
Fellowship
btw I believe shetline has provided very well said arguments in this thread and I also find the points made by Moogs very well said as well.
Only 2 of the ten have anything to do with our legal system. To the theocracy that was the Exodus, it was like our Constitution, the definitive legal document of the culture. I know that it was not placed in this particular courthouse as a testament (no pun intended) to the history of written law, but in most of these cases that is the intent and it should be taken as such. It is no more promoting one religion over all others than having a statue of Abraham Lincoln would be promoting white men over all others. His race is irrelevant. He is simply a historical figure with relevance to the practice of law. The religious ties of the Ten Commandments are irrelevant. They are simply a historical document with relevance to the practice of law.
As a nit-pick, the Ten Commandments are really a part of 2 major religions, both Judaism and Christianity.
Sorry, not the way those are written. The Hebrew Ten Commandments do differ.
the judge has no right to furnish the public space as he wishes.
You know Fellowship, I had never thought about it as simply as that. You're absolutely right! Here I am getting all wrapped up in historical context and seperation of church and state when it really boils down to whether or not he has the authority to decide interior decoration for a public building!
Of course, we all forget that the declaration of independance was merely a notification to the british that these 13 separate states were no longer part of their empire. 1776 really isn't the birthyear of the country. It came later when the articles of confederation were written and eventually scrapped 8 years later. George Washington started serving his term as president in 1789.
The Declaration of Indepedence is not a legal document.
According to Lincoln it was actually earlier - 1774 in the articles of association.
I can't remember (and don't have time for research), but I think Lincoln used them to counter some Southern arguments about Constitutional authority to secede from the Union, as well as lay the groundwork for re-Union and effects of slavery post-civil war. Its in the 2nd Inaugural Address, I think (fuzzy recollection from law school).
Anyway, I don't know what it means you says the Declaration of Indedpendence is not a "legal" document. It is foundational and is at least context for the discussion.
I can't remember (and don't have time for research), but I think Lincoln used them to counter some Southern arguments about Constitutional authority to secede from the Union, as well as lay the groundwork for re-Union and effects of slavery post-civil war. Its in the 2nd Inaugural Address, I think (fuzzy recollection from law school).
Anyway, I don't know what it means you says the Declaration of Indedpendence is not a "legal" document. It is foundational and is at least context for the discussion.
Thoth
It has no legal standing. It just a piece of paper with some nifty words. Monumental, of course. However, just words on a page and nothing more nonetheless. Hence it does not enter into legal discussions regarding the constitutionality of any issue.
It has no legal standing. It just a piece of paper with some nifty words. Monumental, of course. However, just words on a page and nothing more nonetheless.
Biblically speaking the bible tells you to follow the laws of man in all ways, unless they contradict Gods laws.
In other words, even if he was a preacher, and we were in a country where the government could tell him not to carry a bible outside. Biblically, he should not do it.
Biblically speaking the bible tells you to follow the laws of man in all ways, unless they contradict Gods laws.
In other words, even if he was a preacher, and we were in a country where the government could tell him not to carry a bible outside. Biblically, he should not do it.
well, obviously we don't have laws that are so clearly antireligion. but in theory, biblical or not, that bible carrier should be put in jail (assuming he does this bible carrying in view of police or law dogs; if he can manage to 'bible carry' on side streets or dank alleys, where pigs are not oft to be found, then no crime can easily be proven and he can continue on with his bible carrying ways).
It has no legal standing. It just a piece of paper with some nifty words. Monumental, of course. However, just words on a page and nothing more nonetheless. Hence it does not enter into legal discussions regarding the constitutionality of any issue.
Depends on who you ask - Justice Thomas' jurisprudence requires reference to all of the foundational documents, including the Declaration of Independence in order to discern the meaning of constitutional principles, or original intent (whatever that means), etc. He's not alone in this view of constitutional law. So, at least in this sense, the Declaration of Independence is very relevant to a discussion about First Amendment principles.
This sure looks like a graven image and a likeness of a thing to me:
'The hypocrisy is amazing'
I think you might be stretching the point a little bit Sedge...
As far as I recall a " graven image '" ( Hebrew : Pesel ) originally referred to the household "Idols" that were carved or shaped to be put above the hearth or a nearby alcove for that purpose : or above the lintel of the door.. (The romans picked up on this habit too..)
Theologically speaking, it refers to anything that is worshipped or venerated as being a substitiute for GOD. ( as opposed to an image that is their to remind one of God )
A stone copy of a book does not fall into this catergory ...(unless you consider yourself an Iconoclast ). It is an important point, because calligraphy creates "images" in the mind...to whit....they technically break the commandment too...
So, if you take exception to such a caligraphic representation, then you would have to find that all Mosques that have caligraphy on their walls, guilty of the same " hypocrisy " as you put it...8)
"..... a sickening example of the declining moral standards and lack of spiritual fortitude that all too sadly has become the leitmotif of contemporary culture. And I use that last word loosely."
Damm it Sedgy, I was hoping to poke you like a proverbail hornet's nest and I bloody well end up agreeing with you..cut it out !
" This 'sculpture' (what is this Christian kitsch btw and why is it so 'heavy', it ain't exactly got a zen feel has it ?)"
I would so love to show you some of my paintings..
They're based on Zen, Alahambraic geometry & Nature..
" this....is a personification of the judge's spiritual aspiration and as such it is a denial of God and an unwarranted edifice which serves only to vaingloriously bolster one individual's gargantuan folly and blindness to unconscionably Babelesque proportions. "
Literalism is the enemy of the spirit..but we shouldn't judge how others express their religiousness...even if we both see it as childish...
" This atrocity is beyond doubt an idol and as such is an insult to reason when displayed anywhere but in a court of justice it is a brawling obscenity..... "
I did see video footage of the " worshippers " laying down in front of it..attempting to kiss it, working themselves up into a frenzied fever....it's all a bit sad and so unneccessary.
Sedgy,
My fervent hope is that people will come to realise the folly of so much outward religiosity and allow themselves to be touched by Christ's pure message..of love and hope eternal..a gift to us all...
Ps Last night I lay thinking about why it was that Christ never chose to ask anyone of his disciples or followers to write down his sayings or anything about what he did during his soujourn on earth.?
Personally, I think it simply because his message was meant to be passed from word of mouth...and to be kept as simple as possible..
Plus that fact he didn't have any time for the yoke of laws the pharisees put across men's backs...
why is it athiests feel that is not right for it to be in a public forum.. religion? Is it based on a deep conscious that they feel guilty for refusing to acknowledge a higher power? If they play the card that religion is only as heavy as the paper its printed on, then why do they vehemently want to not be in the presence of it? If it didn't matter then why don't they just ignore it? I don't see why this course had to be taken... what difference would it make besides making us watch the same old trivial news to get ratings. One thing I can't stand is that people who don't believe act as elitist, who are more fanatical about their beliefs, than most christians themselves. I am not shoving anything down their throat, nor any other churchs, but I do not deserve the name calling, and belittling, if you respect ones another beliefs, then everyone would hold the same weight I would think wouldn't you?
Also remember that tho the ink and parchment for anything in a public government is in clear legible paper, other legible writings point otherwise. Continual conflict ='s continual progress.
why is it athiests feel that is not right for it to be in a public forum.. religion? Is it based on a deep conscious that they feel guilty for refusing to acknowledge a higher power? If they play the card that religion is only as heavy as the paper its printed on, then why do they vehemently want to not be in the presence of it? If it didn't matter then why don't they just ignore it? I don't see why this course had to be taken... what difference would it make besides making us watch the same old trivial news to get ratings. One thing I can't stand is that people who don't believe act as elitist, who are more fanatical about their beliefs, than most christians themselves. I am not shoving anything down their throat, nor any other churchs, but I do not deserve the name calling, and belittling, if you respect ones another beliefs, then everyone would hold the same weight I would think wouldn't you?
Also remember that tho the ink and parchment for anything in a public government is in clear legible paper, other legible writings point otherwise. Continual conflict ='s continual progress.
Why the hell do you think it's just atheists who dislike this statue? I'm not an atheist. I dislike it. Plenty of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus are offended by it to because it is the government promoting one religion over another.
Comments
Fellowship
btw I believe shetline has provided very well said arguments in this thread and I also find the points made by Moogs very well said as well.
Originally posted by Guartho
Only 2 of the ten have anything to do with our legal system. To the theocracy that was the Exodus, it was like our Constitution, the definitive legal document of the culture. I know that it was not placed in this particular courthouse as a testament (no pun intended) to the history of written law, but in most of these cases that is the intent and it should be taken as such. It is no more promoting one religion over all others than having a statue of Abraham Lincoln would be promoting white men over all others. His race is irrelevant. He is simply a historical figure with relevance to the practice of law. The religious ties of the Ten Commandments are irrelevant. They are simply a historical document with relevance to the practice of law.
As a nit-pick, the Ten Commandments are really a part of 2 major religions, both Judaism and Christianity.
Sorry, not the way those are written. The Hebrew Ten Commandments do differ.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
the judge has no right to furnish the public space as he wishes.
You know Fellowship, I had never thought about it as simply as that.
I think I'll eat some Cheerios now!
Originally posted by BR
Of course, we all forget that the declaration of independance was merely a notification to the british that these 13 separate states were no longer part of their empire. 1776 really isn't the birthyear of the country. It came later when the articles of confederation were written and eventually scrapped 8 years later. George Washington started serving his term as president in 1789.
The Declaration of Indepedence is not a legal document.
According to Lincoln it was actually earlier - 1774 in the articles of association.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/contcong/10-20-74.htm
I can't remember (and don't have time for research), but I think Lincoln used them to counter some Southern arguments about Constitutional authority to secede from the Union, as well as lay the groundwork for re-Union and effects of slavery post-civil war. Its in the 2nd Inaugural Address, I think (fuzzy recollection from law school).
Anyway, I don't know what it means you says the Declaration of Indedpendence is not a "legal" document. It is foundational and is at least context for the discussion.
Thoth
Originally posted by Thoth2
According to Lincoln it was actually earlier - 1774 in the articles of association.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/contcong/10-20-74.htm
I can't remember (and don't have time for research), but I think Lincoln used them to counter some Southern arguments about Constitutional authority to secede from the Union, as well as lay the groundwork for re-Union and effects of slavery post-civil war. Its in the 2nd Inaugural Address, I think (fuzzy recollection from law school).
Anyway, I don't know what it means you says the Declaration of Indedpendence is not a "legal" document. It is foundational and is at least context for the discussion.
Thoth
It has no legal standing. It just a piece of paper with some nifty words. Monumental, of course. However, just words on a page and nothing more nonetheless. Hence it does not enter into legal discussions regarding the constitutionality of any issue.
Originally posted by BR
It has no legal standing. It just a piece of paper with some nifty words. Monumental, of course. However, just words on a page and nothing more nonetheless.
Sounds like the ten commandments...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/na...D-COMM.html?hp
Originally posted by BR
Ooh, let's also vote that black people are really gorillas and don't deserve to be treated as human beings! Democracy Rules!
Ooh, let's vote that all homosexuals are to be tied to fenceposts and beaten with branches wrapped in barbed wire! Democracy Rules!
Ooh, let's vote that we bomb France to rubble! Democracy Rules!
There is something called tyranny of the majority that our constitution was designed to protect against. Try again buddy.
you should run for office with that platform!
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Yup... if you choose your religion over the law then you should be a minister and not a judge.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=3324605
Biblically speaking the bible tells you to follow the laws of man in all ways, unless they contradict Gods laws.
In other words, even if he was a preacher, and we were in a country where the government could tell him not to carry a bible outside. Biblically, he should not do it.
Originally posted by The General
Biblically speaking the bible tells you to follow the laws of man in all ways, unless they contradict Gods laws.
In other words, even if he was a preacher, and we were in a country where the government could tell him not to carry a bible outside. Biblically, he should not do it.
well, obviously we don't have laws that are so clearly antireligion. but in theory, biblical or not, that bible carrier should be put in jail (assuming he does this bible carrying in view of police or law dogs; if he can manage to 'bible carry' on side streets or dank alleys, where pigs are not oft to be found, then no crime can easily be proven and he can continue on with his bible carrying ways).
Originally posted by BR
It has no legal standing. It just a piece of paper with some nifty words. Monumental, of course. However, just words on a page and nothing more nonetheless. Hence it does not enter into legal discussions regarding the constitutionality of any issue.
Depends on who you ask - Justice Thomas' jurisprudence requires reference to all of the foundational documents, including the Declaration of Independence in order to discern the meaning of constitutional principles, or original intent (whatever that means), etc. He's not alone in this view of constitutional law. So, at least in this sense, the Declaration of Independence is very relevant to a discussion about First Amendment principles.
Thoth
Originally posted by segovius
Actually one of the 10 commandments is this:
This sure looks like a graven image and a likeness of a thing to me:
'The hypocrisy is amazing'
I think you might be stretching the point a little bit Sedge...
As far as I recall a " graven image '" ( Hebrew : Pesel ) originally referred to the household "Idols" that were carved or shaped to be put above the hearth or a nearby alcove for that purpose : or above the lintel of the door.. (The romans picked up on this habit too..)
Theologically speaking, it refers to anything that is worshipped or venerated as being a substitiute for GOD. ( as opposed to an image that is their to remind one of God )
A stone copy of a book does not fall into this catergory ...(unless you consider yourself an Iconoclast ). It is an important point, because calligraphy creates "images" in the mind...to whit....they technically break the commandment too...
So, if you take exception to such a caligraphic representation, then you would have to find that all Mosques that have caligraphy on their walls, guilty of the same " hypocrisy " as you put it...8)
"..... a sickening example of the declining moral standards and lack of spiritual fortitude that all too sadly has become the leitmotif of contemporary culture. And I use that last word loosely."
Damm it Sedgy, I was hoping to poke you like a proverbail hornet's nest and I bloody well end up agreeing with you..cut it out !
" This 'sculpture' (what is this Christian kitsch btw and why is it so 'heavy', it ain't exactly got a zen feel has it ?)"
I would so love to show you some of my paintings..
They're based on Zen, Alahambraic geometry & Nature..
" this....is a personification of the judge's spiritual aspiration and as such it is a denial of God and an unwarranted edifice which serves only to vaingloriously bolster one individual's gargantuan folly and blindness to unconscionably Babelesque proportions. "
Literalism is the enemy of the spirit..but we shouldn't judge how others express their religiousness...even if we both see it as childish...
" This atrocity is beyond doubt an idol and as such is an insult to reason when displayed anywhere but in a court of justice it is a brawling obscenity..... "
I did see video footage of the " worshippers " laying down in front of it..attempting to kiss it, working themselves up into a frenzied fever....it's all a bit sad and so unneccessary.
Sedgy,
My fervent hope is that people will come to realise the folly of so much outward religiosity and allow themselves to be touched by Christ's pure message..of love and hope eternal..a gift to us all...
Ps Last night I lay thinking about why it was that Christ never chose to ask anyone of his disciples or followers to write down his sayings or anything about what he did during his soujourn on earth.?
Personally, I think it simply because his message was meant to be passed from word of mouth...and to be kept as simple as possible..
Plus that fact he didn't have any time for the yoke of laws the pharisees put across men's backs...
Also remember that tho the ink and parchment for anything in a public government is in clear legible paper, other legible writings point otherwise. Continual conflict ='s continual progress.
Originally posted by kraig911
why is it athiests feel that is not right for it to be in a public forum.. religion? Is it based on a deep conscious that they feel guilty for refusing to acknowledge a higher power? If they play the card that religion is only as heavy as the paper its printed on, then why do they vehemently want to not be in the presence of it? If it didn't matter then why don't they just ignore it? I don't see why this course had to be taken... what difference would it make besides making us watch the same old trivial news to get ratings. One thing I can't stand is that people who don't believe act as elitist, who are more fanatical about their beliefs, than most christians themselves. I am not shoving anything down their throat, nor any other churchs, but I do not deserve the name calling, and belittling, if you respect ones another beliefs, then everyone would hold the same weight I would think wouldn't you?
Also remember that tho the ink and parchment for anything in a public government is in clear legible paper, other legible writings point otherwise. Continual conflict ='s continual progress.
Why the hell do you think it's just atheists who dislike this statue? I'm not an atheist. I dislike it. Plenty of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus are offended by it to because it is the government promoting one religion over another.
You just hate infidels.
Originally posted by BR
You just hate infidels.
Watch it. You might get yourself stoned.
Did anyone get a look at that guy screaming his tonsils out while they were taking the "monument" out?
PUT IT BACK!
my father never hugged me
PUT IT BACK!
I just wanted a hug, is that too much to ask?
PUT IT BACK!
I'm an alcoholic
GET YOUR HANDS OFF OUR GOD!
I hate my wife
PUT IT BACK YOU GOD HATERS!
I want to die
short pause...
PUT IT BACK YOU GOD HATERS!
I want her to die
PUT IT BACK!
look at her kneeling there praying...pray bitch pray...PRAY! YOU KNOW YOU'LL NEED IT
Originally posted by kraig911
if you respect ones another beliefs, then everyone would hold the same weight I would think wouldn't you?
But you see, I don't respect everyone's beliefs.
I respect that people have the right to believe as they choose, but that's not the same thing as respecting the beliefs themselves.
Originally posted by segovius
and that was just the local preacher rehearsing next Sunday's sermon on humility. You should see the congregation when they get going.....
Sounds like the kind of thing you'd want to bring some popcorn to.