Sounds like that Reagan stuff about "outlaw states".
Well, if the law is the law, and it is not OK to break it, what right did the colonists have to secede and form a nation? They broke British law after law. Wouldn't that make us a nation founded by criminals (or from the British King's viewpoint, terrorists)? <<edit-just to make sure no one misunderstands, I do not believe any of this applies--I do not think the colonists were criminals in the true sense for opposing the british rule. See below>>
If enough people decide a law is unjust, then the law is unjust : the law is supposed to work FOR THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. When the law is put above the people, that is usually called "tyranny".
If a law is unjust, then I believe it is the responsibility of those who disagree with the law to raise issue with it, and if they cannot get it changed through negotiation, then they should break it. They should not be spared any punishment because of it... any law that is broken deserves punishment. But if you believe in something strongly enough, you should be willing to accept the consequences if you break the law in the name of what's right.
What's legal and what's right are two different things. If someone does something illegal, but right, they should be punished for breaking the law but I would hold them in high regard for being willing to break the law to make a stand. If someone does something that's morally wrong, but legal, they seem to me like a slime, someone who will do anything for personal gain and who is too afraid to accept the consequences of their actions.
Now that I think about it, I do have a certain admiration for Justice Moore, in that he's willing to put his career at risk because he believes so strongly in the Ten Commandments. But on the other hand, he really should take the fall for this. The state's taxpayers shouldn't have to pay $5000 per day... he should have to. That would be an appropriate punishment for his actions.
Someone will do a thorough background check on him and it will be shown that he has in fact broken every one of those precious 10 commandments.
You could do that for pretty much anyone. <-- The one thing I've learned from politicians and actors. Ain't no one gonna pass our puritanical scrutiny. Even the saints sinned.
You could do that for pretty much anyone. <-- The one thing I've learned from politicians and actors. Ain't no one gonna pass our puritanical scrutiny. Even the saints sinned.
But think about it. He's only setting himself up. Give the media something to make a witty headline about and they'll run with it. This holier than thou attitude is a blade that cuts both ways.
And once again, why won't anyone agree to get rid of religious based holidays enforced by the govt? When will they be removed from govt?
Well OK.
Let's rename Christmas then. Simple. Let's call it 'Winter Solstice Holiday' or something. I wouldn't have a problem with this it all, although I think it would be a bit of a shame since there's nothing wrong at all with celebrating the birth of Jesus. But if that's what you're demanding for the sake of consistency and to win an argument, then that's cool with me.
Your analogy doesn't actually hold, you see. You can give a holiday a secular name and Christians can still remember the birth of Jesus on that day and good for them. (The mulled wine and a walk in the cold'll do for me.) But putting up a marble slab with the Commandments on it outside a courthouse says that people will be judged, whether they like it or not, according to scripture thousands of years old.
It says, furthermore, that scripture is more important than the innovations of secular law as administered by the state, ignoring the thousands of years of progress our societies have made in the intervening millennia.
Actually no, it sends the message that state and scripture should be indistinguishable. This is called a theocracy. The people of Iran hate it. We all hate Sharia law in Saudi and Northern Nigeria. We don't want priests to run our states but that's the only logical eventual outcome if zealots like this are permitted to blur the boundaries between state and religion without being checked.
You can't get round this by renaming the Commandments, or changing the words, or hiding the slab, or whatever. It's not like a freaking holiday that predates the birth of Christ by who knows how many thousands of years.
America's not a Christian state. It just isn't. It's a pluralistic, tolerant place with mosques, synagogues, Hindu temples, Ife shrines and humanist meeting halls and you should by PROUD of that. It's what makes you better than the people who fly aeroplanes into your tall buildings. Zealots and fundamentalists are the same brand of dickhead everywhere in the world and anyone with a conscience should tell them to piss off.
So I don't care what you call Christmas, this man's a twat.
Not sure if you were implying if Italy was run by the Vatican (or if you were saying the Vatican itself is a country of sorts), but no, Italy is not run by a Church. I think the more liberal aspects of their culture speak to that clearly enough.
Israel? Run by religious zealots, yes. But I am sure there are aspects of Israeli society that are not consistent with the teachings of most rabbis there. It just happens that the ONLY aspect of Israeli life we ever hear about, is tied very closely to religion (theirs and their enemy's).
North Korea? I don't consider following a man out of fear to be a religion; it's coercion. Kim is a maniac, but not a religious fanatic. If he were touting that everyone follow the teachings of some shrine, I might agree N. Korea is run by a Church, but basically not as this point.
One place that crossed my mind after I posted: Tibbet. However, I hardly consider it a "real country" in the modern context. My point is only this: even if you have religious nuts involved with government policy or affairs in various countries, it's still hard to make the argument that "the Church runs the state".
And that's what separation of church and state is really all about at this point in time / in this country. Keeping the leaders of religion from leading the republic / getting the republic's money / etc.
Can't recall who posted this (sorry, not intentional), but:
Quote:
I don't think its far-fetched, or unreasonable to ask a religious judge/lawperson to respect the will of the people over his religion. If there is a conflict, I think the clearly accepted law, ie the constitution, amendments, bills, etc, should trump the less accepted religious law, bible, ten commandments, etc
No, no. It clearly IS NOT unreasonable to ask the judge to put away his 10 Commandments. He definitely should. That wasn't my point. My point was just this: we can take away all the symbols, slogans and words in ALL government proceedings, and still not have an effective separation of church and state IN SO FAR as religion not influencing policy. Obviously, we have an effective separation where "protection of the republic" is concerned.
That is, the judge will take down his Commandments, will not speak about Christianity during his work, will not admit to letting his God influence his judgements. BUT THEY UNDOUBTEDLY WILL influence his judgement; he simply won't make a point of telling anyone in the courtroom. You can't control a man's thoughts, so if man is dead-set on his beliefs of Christianity as being the building blocks of this nation, he is going to apply [Christian concepts] - in his own mind - to the trial at hand.
Same with Congressmen, Governors and Presidents. They don't have to come out and say "we're letting our religious views dictate our decisions on certain policy matters" in order for it to actually be happening. All the time.
Hence my conclusion that - other than protecting the Republic from church takeovers - separatation of church and state is an illusion. Makes us feel better to convince ourselves that it's there, working. But it's not. It never has.
FRANKEN: Well -- the suspended chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, was back again today, defending his decision to ignore a federal court order demanding that the Ten Commandments monument be moved from the lobby of the state judicial building. A defiant Moore addressed the faithful just moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF JUSTICE ROY MOORE, ALABAMA SUPREME COURT: Should I keep back my opinions at such a time as this?
CROWD: No.
MOORE: Through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself guilty of treason, and on an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FRANKEN: Crowd-controlled barricades have now been erected in front of the courthouse to keep Justice Moore's supporters from rushing the building. Sounds like a fun group.
(LAUGHTER)
FRANKEN: Just what we need in this country, religious fundamentalist mobs storming public buildings. I say, keep the Ten Commandments where they are, because, as we've seen, theocracies have worked so well in Iran and in Afghanistan.
(LAUGHTER)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: I don't know. I mean, I must say, Justice Moore does seem like a bit of a demagogue and certainly a bit self-righteous, getting up there and talking about the majesty of heaven. On the other hand, we're nowhere close to a theocracy. That's hyperbole and I think it sort of undercuts your case, don't you think?
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... beat up on religious people?
FRANKEN: Well, we have a Constitution, though. And I think that rule of law is really important.
CARLSON: I completely agree with you.
FRANKEN: Oh, good. See, we're in agreement. Rule of law.
Got so wrapped up in the discussion that I failed to notice the next 3 pages... lol. Well, here it is anyway
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
So, SDW, do you object to a statue of Zeus next to a giant Buddha next to a statue depicting something important in Islam next to an upside down cross next to a torah next to a golden calf next to the ten commandments in that courthouse?
I cannot speak for SDW, but the Torah and the Ten Commandments are the only things you listed that have to do with the history of written law and would be appropriate. However, since the Ten Commandments are in the Torah that would be redundant, so perhaps the Code of Hammurabi(sp?) would be better alongside the Ten Commandments.
In answer to that, I would have no problem with the Code of Hammurabi along with the Ten Commandments or even by itself as I, as a Christian, view it purely in its historical context with relevance to the written law. It should be noted however, that the Code of Hammurabi is a great deal longer and some poor shmuck would have to figure out how to fit the thing in there.
Got so wrapped up in the discussion that I failed to notice the next 3 pages... lol. Well, here it is anyway
I cannot speak for SDW, but the Torah and the Ten Commandments are the only things you listed that have to do with the history of written law and would be appropriate. However, since the Ten Commandments are in the Torah that would be redundant, so perhaps the Code of Hammurabi(sp?) would be better alongside the Ten Commandments.
In answer to that, I would have no problem with the Code of Hammurabi along with the Ten Commandments or even by itself as I, as a Christian, view it purely in its historical context with relevance to the written law. It should be noted however, that the Code of Hammurabi is a great deal longer and some poor shmuck would have to figure out how to fit the thing in there.
Only 2 of the ten commandments have anything to do with the legal system: no stealing and no killing. It's a religious symbol and that's all there is to it. Having it there is promoting one religion over all the others and that is not the place of government.
Only 2 of the ten commandments have anything to do with the legal system: no stealing and no killing. It's a religious symbol and that's all there is to it. Having it there is promoting one religion over all the others and that is not the place of government.
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.
Comments
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
How can a country be "illegitimate"?
Sounds like that Reagan stuff about "outlaw states".
Well, if the law is the law, and it is not OK to break it, what right did the colonists have to secede and form a nation? They broke British law after law. Wouldn't that make us a nation founded by criminals (or from the British King's viewpoint, terrorists)? <<edit-just to make sure no one misunderstands, I do not believe any of this applies--I do not think the colonists were criminals in the true sense for opposing the british rule. See below>>
If enough people decide a law is unjust, then the law is unjust : the law is supposed to work FOR THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. When the law is put above the people, that is usually called "tyranny".
Just a troll, or maybe a Fanatical Christian troll with glowing pink hair.
Would you like fries with that?
What's legal and what's right are two different things. If someone does something illegal, but right, they should be punished for breaking the law but I would hold them in high regard for being willing to break the law to make a stand. If someone does something that's morally wrong, but legal, they seem to me like a slime, someone who will do anything for personal gain and who is too afraid to accept the consequences of their actions.
Now that I think about it, I do have a certain admiration for Justice Moore, in that he's willing to put his career at risk because he believes so strongly in the Ten Commandments. But on the other hand, he really should take the fall for this. The state's taxpayers shouldn't have to pay $5000 per day... he should have to. That would be an appropriate punishment for his actions.
Originally posted by Outsider
Someone will do a thorough background check on him and it will be shown that he has in fact broken every one of those precious 10 commandments.
Didn't Jesus even say that if you've broken one, you're guilty of breaking them all?
Hey! I saw him eyeing that guy's wife! He's Guilty? I tell you!
GUILTY!?
Originally posted by DiscoCow
Great news! I just heard that he's been suspended.
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
Originally posted by Outsider
Someone will do a thorough background check on him and it will be shown that he has in fact broken every one of those precious 10 commandments.
You could do that for pretty much anyone. <-- The one thing I've learned from politicians and actors. Ain't no one gonna pass our puritanical scrutiny. Even the saints sinned.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
well... I'm sure he's broken at least a couple... who hasn't?
Well my point is he should keep them in his heart, not on a piece of cold stone. If they really matter to him that is.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
You could do that for pretty much anyone. <-- The one thing I've learned from politicians and actors. Ain't no one gonna pass our puritanical scrutiny. Even the saints sinned.
But think about it. He's only setting himself up. Give the media something to make a witty headline about and they'll run with it. This holier than thou attitude is a blade that cuts both ways.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
And once again, why won't anyone agree to get rid of religious based holidays enforced by the govt? When will they be removed from govt?
Well OK.
Let's rename Christmas then. Simple. Let's call it 'Winter Solstice Holiday' or something. I wouldn't have a problem with this it all, although I think it would be a bit of a shame since there's nothing wrong at all with celebrating the birth of Jesus. But if that's what you're demanding for the sake of consistency and to win an argument, then that's cool with me.
Your analogy doesn't actually hold, you see. You can give a holiday a secular name and Christians can still remember the birth of Jesus on that day and good for them. (The mulled wine and a walk in the cold'll do for me.) But putting up a marble slab with the Commandments on it outside a courthouse says that people will be judged, whether they like it or not, according to scripture thousands of years old.
It says, furthermore, that scripture is more important than the innovations of secular law as administered by the state, ignoring the thousands of years of progress our societies have made in the intervening millennia.
Actually no, it sends the message that state and scripture should be indistinguishable. This is called a theocracy. The people of Iran hate it. We all hate Sharia law in Saudi and Northern Nigeria. We don't want priests to run our states but that's the only logical eventual outcome if zealots like this are permitted to blur the boundaries between state and religion without being checked.
You can't get round this by renaming the Commandments, or changing the words, or hiding the slab, or whatever. It's not like a freaking holiday that predates the birth of Christ by who knows how many thousands of years.
America's not a Christian state. It just isn't. It's a pluralistic, tolerant place with mosques, synagogues, Hindu temples, Ife shrines and humanist meeting halls and you should by PROUD of that. It's what makes you better than the people who fly aeroplanes into your tall buildings. Zealots and fundamentalists are the same brand of dickhead everywhere in the world and anyone with a conscience should tell them to piss off.
So I don't care what you call Christmas, this man's a twat.
Not sure if you were implying if Italy was run by the Vatican (or if you were saying the Vatican itself is a country of sorts), but no, Italy is not run by a Church. I think the more liberal aspects of their culture speak to that clearly enough.
Israel? Run by religious zealots, yes. But I am sure there are aspects of Israeli society that are not consistent with the teachings of most rabbis there. It just happens that the ONLY aspect of Israeli life we ever hear about, is tied very closely to religion (theirs and their enemy's).
North Korea? I don't consider following a man out of fear to be a religion; it's coercion. Kim is a maniac, but not a religious fanatic. If he were touting that everyone follow the teachings of some shrine, I might agree N. Korea is run by a Church, but basically not as this point.
One place that crossed my mind after I posted: Tibbet. However, I hardly consider it a "real country" in the modern context. My point is only this: even if you have religious nuts involved with government policy or affairs in various countries, it's still hard to make the argument that "the Church runs the state".
And that's what separation of church and state is really all about at this point in time / in this country. Keeping the leaders of religion from leading the republic / getting the republic's money / etc.
Can't recall who posted this (sorry, not intentional), but:
I don't think its far-fetched, or unreasonable to ask a religious judge/lawperson to respect the will of the people over his religion. If there is a conflict, I think the clearly accepted law, ie the constitution, amendments, bills, etc, should trump the less accepted religious law, bible, ten commandments, etc
No, no. It clearly IS NOT unreasonable to ask the judge to put away his 10 Commandments. He definitely should. That wasn't my point. My point was just this: we can take away all the symbols, slogans and words in ALL government proceedings, and still not have an effective separation of church and state IN SO FAR as religion not influencing policy. Obviously, we have an effective separation where "protection of the republic" is concerned.
That is, the judge will take down his Commandments, will not speak about Christianity during his work, will not admit to letting his God influence his judgements. BUT THEY UNDOUBTEDLY WILL influence his judgement; he simply won't make a point of telling anyone in the courtroom. You can't control a man's thoughts, so if man is dead-set on his beliefs of Christianity as being the building blocks of this nation, he is going to apply [Christian concepts] - in his own mind - to the trial at hand.
Same with Congressmen, Governors and Presidents. They don't have to come out and say "we're letting our religious views dictate our decisions on certain policy matters" in order for it to actually be happening. All the time.
Hence my conclusion that - other than protecting the Republic from church takeovers - separatation of church and state is an illusion. Makes us feel better to convince ourselves that it's there, working. But it's not. It never has.
check this out from last night's Crossfire...
FRANKEN: Well -- the suspended chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, was back again today, defending his decision to ignore a federal court order demanding that the Ten Commandments monument be moved from the lobby of the state judicial building. A defiant Moore addressed the faithful just moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF JUSTICE ROY MOORE, ALABAMA SUPREME COURT: Should I keep back my opinions at such a time as this?
CROWD: No.
MOORE: Through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself guilty of treason, and on an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FRANKEN: Crowd-controlled barricades have now been erected in front of the courthouse to keep Justice Moore's supporters from rushing the building. Sounds like a fun group.
(LAUGHTER)
FRANKEN: Just what we need in this country, religious fundamentalist mobs storming public buildings. I say, keep the Ten Commandments where they are, because, as we've seen, theocracies have worked so well in Iran and in Afghanistan.
(LAUGHTER)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: I don't know. I mean, I must say, Justice Moore does seem like a bit of a demagogue and certainly a bit self-righteous, getting up there and talking about the majesty of heaven. On the other hand, we're nowhere close to a theocracy. That's hyperbole and I think it sort of undercuts your case, don't you think?
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... beat up on religious people?
FRANKEN: Well, we have a Constitution, though. And I think that rule of law is really important.
CARLSON: I completely agree with you.
FRANKEN: Oh, good. See, we're in agreement. Rule of law.
(LAUGHTER)
Originally posted by BR
So, SDW, do you object to a statue of Zeus next to a giant Buddha next to a statue depicting something important in Islam next to an upside down cross next to a torah next to a golden calf next to the ten commandments in that courthouse?
I cannot speak for SDW, but the Torah and the Ten Commandments are the only things you listed that have to do with the history of written law and would be appropriate. However, since the Ten Commandments are in the Torah that would be redundant, so perhaps the Code of Hammurabi(sp?) would be better alongside the Ten Commandments.
In answer to that, I would have no problem with the Code of Hammurabi along with the Ten Commandments or even by itself as I, as a Christian, view it purely in its historical context with relevance to the written law. It should be noted however, that the Code of Hammurabi is a great deal longer and some poor shmuck would have to figure out how to fit the thing in there.
Originally posted by Guartho
Got so wrapped up in the discussion that I failed to notice the next 3 pages... lol. Well, here it is anyway
I cannot speak for SDW, but the Torah and the Ten Commandments are the only things you listed that have to do with the history of written law and would be appropriate. However, since the Ten Commandments are in the Torah that would be redundant, so perhaps the Code of Hammurabi(sp?) would be better alongside the Ten Commandments.
In answer to that, I would have no problem with the Code of Hammurabi along with the Ten Commandments or even by itself as I, as a Christian, view it purely in its historical context with relevance to the written law. It should be noted however, that the Code of Hammurabi is a great deal longer and some poor shmuck would have to figure out how to fit the thing in there.
Only 2 of the ten commandments have anything to do with the legal system: no stealing and no killing. It's a religious symbol and that's all there is to it. Having it there is promoting one religion over all the others and that is not the place of government.
Originally posted by BR
Only 2 of the ten commandments have anything to do with the legal system: no stealing and no killing. It's a religious symbol and that's all there is to it. Having it there is promoting one religion over all the others and that is not the place of government.
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.