The Fed wanted to block it from view with some dividers. The judge threatened to come down himself and tear them down if they do so. Is that justice achieved? No.
It almost sounds like the judge "won" by having it so the Feds would not ask to remove it, and put up dividers. What? After he said he'd tear them down, the Feds said, then we'll get rid of it?
So the point here is how the Law is to be held above all else?
hmm, you sure didn't follow up that question the way I thought you would. Personally, I think it is dangerous to have the belief that whatever law exists, must be followed because it is a law. Laws are just words made by people who make mistakes, and are changed all the time.
That said, I believe the judge should remove the statue because of the principle of state/church separation involved.
It almost sounds like the judge "won" by having it so the Feds would not ask to remove it, and put up dividers. What? After he said he'd tear them down, the Feds said, then we'll get rid of it?
No no no. The Fed wanted to put the dividers up until they could remove it.
hmm, you sure didn't follow up that question the way I thought you would. Personally, I think it is dangerous to have the belief that whatever law exists, must be followed because it is a law. Laws are just words made by people who make mistakes, and are changed all the time.
That said, I believe the judge should remove the statue because of the principle of state/church separation involved.
We have a Supremem Court, we have Rule of Law, we have a process. Is there a problem with that? True, laws are just words and people make mistakes, but you cannot have anarchy and decide which laws you will follow today. Hence the rules and the process for change. But when a rule of Law is decided, it is decided.
It is really not open to personal interpreation to all of a sudden claim a law is not valid or does not apply or is "unfair". True, in the past we have had "bad" laws, but that did not matter, they eventually got fixed. And today we have bad laws, but we cannot willy-nilly ignore them, we must go through the process of change and obey until then.
Man, I'm just baffled by this thread. I think Kickaha summed up my opinion pretty well back on page 2 (right before sammi jo's excellent [albeit long] post). The courthouse is government land, the government can't promote religion, it's that cut and dry. Plus, the judge is in violation of a court order. His choices are appeal or comply, not resist.
Oh, and I'm surprised at all this confusion over "verions" of the Ten Commandments. The commandments themselves only ever show up twice in the entire Bible (both Old and New Testaments) : their original reception on top of Mount Sinai in the book of Exodus, and when Moses repeats them to the Israelites before they cross the Jordan River into Canaan in the Book of Deuteronomy.
In terms of inclusiveness, people seem to be ignoring the first half (and arguably the more Biblically emphasised half) of the Ten Commandments. Yes, the commandments do talk about not killing and not stealing (but then so does Hammurabi's Code), but it more importantly attempts to enforce a monotheistic and non-idolatric religious system. Thus, if a governmental official is trying to display this message, it means that all Hindus, for example, are 'immoral' because they have a polytheistic religion.
For most laws, I would agree with you, but there are times when bad laws require civil disobedience.
for instance, if a law/amendment was passed saying the US government is going to put a camera in every bedroom for "security reasons" (unlikely, I know, but it is the principle I am talking about) would you follow that law?
For most laws, I would agree with you, but there are times when bad laws require civil disobedience.
for instance, if a law/amendment was passed saying the US government is going to put a camera in every bedroom for "security reasons" (unlikely, I know, but it is the principle I am talking about) would you follow that law?
If the ATF broke down my door, with guns blazing, I guess I'd have no choice. There are the framers of the Law, and those who enforce it. Is that really relevant about the Law that is being broken here?
And yes, I speed. And it is the job of the cop to decide whether I am worthy of getting punished (sometimes I am, most times I'm not).
No, this is OT. I'm just surprised you raised that question, and then just went along when everyone said "yes".
EDIT-BTW, I believe there would be a revolution in this country before a law like the one I proposed would be allowed to pass. So I don't think you would have to worry about enforcement of it.
I just did a ten minute search in Google to see if Judge Moore has passed any capital sentences in his courtroom. I couldn't find any such references, but it would be interesting to see if he abides by all of his precious 10 Commandments when passing sentence: the 5th one states "you shall not kill". I realise that "killing " is not a black and white affair; for example, anyone defending themselves, or their family, or their nation, from an attacker has the right to defend themselves, and this often results in the attacker's death.
Murder by the state, aka (euphemistically) "capital punishment", is wrong on every count. Especially when due to the inherent flaws in the justice system, one is never 100% sure that every person sentenced to die is guilty. I would be interested to find out what Judhe Moore's take is on this somewhat inconvenient black sheep in amongst God's legal decrees.
The system isn't 100%. We accept this with every other punishment *except* the death penalty, under the assumption that the death penalty alone is irreversible.
Guess what. They all are, with the possible exception of a purely monetary fine that can be refunded.
You can't give someone back years of their life spent in prison. Period. To me it doesn't matter if the years taken are in the middle (incarceration) or the end (death penalty). They're gone.
The system won't improve until we realize that the death penalty opposition is a red herring that's muddling the issues that are really at fault.
And *way* to hijack the thread in a completely different direction.
I just did a ten minute search in Google to see if Judge Moore has passed any capital sentences in his courtroom. I couldn't find any such references, but it would be interesting to see if he abides by all of his precious 10 Commandments when passing sentence: the 5th one states "you shall not kill". I realise that "killing " is not a black and white affair; for example, anyone defending themselves, or their family, or their nation, from an attacker has the right to defend themselves, and this often results in the attacker's death.
Murder by the state, aka (euphemistically) "capital punishment", is wrong on every count. Especially when due to the inherent flaws in the justice system, one is never 100% sure that every person sentenced to die is guilty. I would be interested to find out what Judhe Moore's take is on this somewhat inconvenient black sheep in amongst God's legal decrees.
Simple, mistransalation: murder is what is meant, an unjustified taking of life. That's an easy one for the Judge to rebut.
But, if the Law allows for capital punishment, what's the problem?
Did they really violate any specific laws and not get punished?
If a war counts as punishment, yes, they were punished. Would you prefer this country to have remained a colony under a system of taxation without representation? (Of course, for DC this state of affairs continues to this day)
Edit: Are you saying our country is illegitimate because the founders broke the law of the day?
If a war counts as punishment, yes, they were punished. Would you prefer this country to have remained a colony under a system of taxation without representation? (Of course, for DC this state of affairs continues to this day)
Edit: Are you saying our country is illegitimate because the founders broke the law of the day?
How can a country be "illegitimate"?
Sounds like that Reagan stuff about "outlaw states".
Comments
Originally posted by BR
The Fed wanted to block it from view with some dividers. The judge threatened to come down himself and tear them down if they do so. Is that justice achieved? No.
It almost sounds like the judge "won" by having it so the Feds would not ask to remove it, and put up dividers. What? After he said he'd tear them down, the Feds said, then we'll get rid of it?
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
So the point here is how the Law is to be held above all else?
hmm, you sure didn't follow up that question the way I thought you would. Personally, I think it is dangerous to have the belief that whatever law exists, must be followed because it is a law. Laws are just words made by people who make mistakes, and are changed all the time.
That said, I believe the judge should remove the statue because of the principle of state/church separation involved.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
It almost sounds like the judge "won" by having it so the Feds would not ask to remove it, and put up dividers. What? After he said he'd tear them down, the Feds said, then we'll get rid of it?
No no no. The Fed wanted to put the dividers up until they could remove it.
Originally posted by james808
hmm, you sure didn't follow up that question the way I thought you would. Personally, I think it is dangerous to have the belief that whatever law exists, must be followed because it is a law. Laws are just words made by people who make mistakes, and are changed all the time.
That said, I believe the judge should remove the statue because of the principle of state/church separation involved.
We have a Supremem Court, we have Rule of Law, we have a process. Is there a problem with that? True, laws are just words and people make mistakes, but you cannot have anarchy and decide which laws you will follow today. Hence the rules and the process for change. But when a rule of Law is decided, it is decided.
It is really not open to personal interpreation to all of a sudden claim a law is not valid or does not apply or is "unfair". True, in the past we have had "bad" laws, but that did not matter, they eventually got fixed. And today we have bad laws, but we cannot willy-nilly ignore them, we must go through the process of change and obey until then.
Oh, and I'm surprised at all this confusion over "verions" of the Ten Commandments. The commandments themselves only ever show up twice in the entire Bible (both Old and New Testaments) : their original reception on top of Mount Sinai in the book of Exodus, and when Moses repeats them to the Israelites before they cross the Jordan River into Canaan in the Book of Deuteronomy.
In terms of inclusiveness, people seem to be ignoring the first half (and arguably the more Biblically emphasised half) of the Ten Commandments. Yes, the commandments do talk about not killing and not stealing (but then so does Hammurabi's Code), but it more importantly attempts to enforce a monotheistic and non-idolatric religious system. Thus, if a governmental official is trying to display this message, it means that all Hindus, for example, are 'immoral' because they have a polytheistic religion.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
But when a rule of Law is decided, it is decided.
Do you ever speed?
For most laws, I would agree with you, but there are times when bad laws require civil disobedience.
for instance, if a law/amendment was passed saying the US government is going to put a camera in every bedroom for "security reasons" (unlikely, I know, but it is the principle I am talking about) would you follow that law?
Originally posted by james808
Do you ever speed?
For most laws, I would agree with you, but there are times when bad laws require civil disobedience.
for instance, if a law/amendment was passed saying the US government is going to put a camera in every bedroom for "security reasons" (unlikely, I know, but it is the principle I am talking about) would you follow that law?
If the ATF broke down my door, with guns blazing, I guess I'd have no choice. There are the framers of the Law, and those who enforce it. Is that really relevant about the Law that is being broken here?
And yes, I speed. And it is the job of the cop to decide whether I am worthy of getting punished (sometimes I am, most times I'm not).
EDIT-BTW, I believe there would be a revolution in this country before a law like the one I proposed would be allowed to pass. So I don't think you would have to worry about enforcement of it.
Originally posted by james808
No, this is OT. I'm just surprised you raised that question, and then just went along when everyone said "yes".
The Law is the Law.
The process is the process.
They should be readily obeyed.
What is surprising about following the Law?
I break the Law, I get caught, I pay.
Isn't that what we defined as the topic?
There were too many tangents about personal beliefs, which has nothing to do with the process of the Law.
The problem now is how the enforcers are being way too lenient and not following through with the judgements handed down.
I'm glad the British colonists of this land in 1775 disagreed with you.
Murder by the state, aka (euphemistically) "capital punishment", is wrong on every count. Especially when due to the inherent flaws in the justice system, one is never 100% sure that every person sentenced to die is guilty. I would be interested to find out what Judhe Moore's take is on this somewhat inconvenient black sheep in amongst God's legal decrees.
Originally posted by james808
"The law is the law"
I'm glad the British colonists of this land in 1775 disagreed with you.
Spot on!
Guess what. They all are, with the possible exception of a purely monetary fine that can be refunded.
You can't give someone back years of their life spent in prison. Period. To me it doesn't matter if the years taken are in the middle (incarceration) or the end (death penalty). They're gone.
The system won't improve until we realize that the death penalty opposition is a red herring that's muddling the issues that are really at fault.
And *way* to hijack the thread in a completely different direction.
Originally posted by james808
"The law is the law"
I'm glad the British colonists of this land in 1775 disagreed with you.
Did they really violate any specific laws and not get punished?
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030822_1019.html
can you believe people are camping out? some people have twisted priorities.
Originally posted by sammi jo
I just did a ten minute search in Google to see if Judge Moore has passed any capital sentences in his courtroom. I couldn't find any such references, but it would be interesting to see if he abides by all of his precious 10 Commandments when passing sentence: the 5th one states "you shall not kill". I realise that "killing " is not a black and white affair; for example, anyone defending themselves, or their family, or their nation, from an attacker has the right to defend themselves, and this often results in the attacker's death.
Murder by the state, aka (euphemistically) "capital punishment", is wrong on every count. Especially when due to the inherent flaws in the justice system, one is never 100% sure that every person sentenced to die is guilty. I would be interested to find out what Judhe Moore's take is on this somewhat inconvenient black sheep in amongst God's legal decrees.
Simple, mistransalation: murder is what is meant, an unjustified taking of life. That's an easy one for the Judge to rebut.
But, if the Law allows for capital punishment, what's the problem?
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Did they really violate any specific laws and not get punished?
If a war counts as punishment, yes, they were punished. Would you prefer this country to have remained a colony under a system of taxation without representation? (Of course, for DC this state of affairs continues to this day)
Edit: Are you saying our country is illegitimate because the founders broke the law of the day?
Originally posted by james808
If a war counts as punishment, yes, they were punished. Would you prefer this country to have remained a colony under a system of taxation without representation? (Of course, for DC this state of affairs continues to this day)
Edit: Are you saying our country is illegitimate because the founders broke the law of the day?
How can a country be "illegitimate"?
Sounds like that Reagan stuff about "outlaw states".
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
How can a country be "illegitimate"?
Well, you see the motherland just had a little one night fling with the fatherland--these things happen.