Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kapkomet

Ten Commandments NOT allowed in Courtrooms

Recommended Posts

According to the Supreme Court, this violates the separation of church and state.

 

So... better get those mf'in sand blasters out and start sand blasting all those buildings in DC that have ANYTHING to do with religion of any kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of decesions coming down today...

 

-The court refused to intervene in the reporters leak case, with their refusal to testify in a grand jury setting.

 

-The Supreme Court also Monday overturned a ruling that required cable operators to open up their high-speed Internet lines to rivals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2005 -> 02:30 PM)
-The Supreme Court also Monday overturned a ruling that required cable operators to open up their high-speed Internet lines to rivals.

 

 

HELL YA. (job security)

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read their rulings...the court allowed specific sorts of displays of the ten commandments, where the things weren't displayed as part of an overt religious display.

 

For example, the court allowed a display of the ten commandments on government property in Texas, where the religious message was a part of 17 different historical displays on a couple acres of property.

 

They did not allow the overt display of only a ten commandments monument.

 

In other words, they drew the line right where it should be...you can show the ten commandments if your goal is not to stricly promote Judeo-Christian beliefs. If you put it with something, so that it's not just promoting one religion over all others, then it's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2005 -> 10:08 AM)
Read their rulings...the court allowed specific sorts of displays of the ten commandments, where the things weren't displayed as part of an overt religious display.

 

For example, the court allowed a display of the ten commandments on government property in Texas, where the religious message was a part of 17 different historical displays on a couple acres of property.

 

They did not allow the overt display of only a ten commandments monument.

 

In other words, they drew the line right where it should be...you can show the ten commandments if your goal is not to stricly promote Judeo-Christian beliefs.  If you put it with something, so that it's not just promoting one religion over all others, then it's fine.

You know I feel funny replying here because I am a seriously lapsed Catholic and not at all what one would be considered as religious or holy. That being said the Supreme Court is on a roll. One horrible decision after another. The culture, to use a very broad term here has changed greatly in my lifetime. Most folks have no idea what "separation of Church and State" meant to the original Founders of the nation. Basically this ruling bashes the First Amendment, and further marginalizes any expression of religion in the public domain. I'm sure in another generation or less any public display of religious faith will be oppressed to the point that religion will be driven underground like in the old Soviet Bloc. How ironic, as the Orthdox faith and Catholicism ( in Poland) are undergoing a rebirth in those nations. For this ruling to be consistent "In God We Trust", and any kind of prayer or invocation such as is practiced in the United States Senate will have to go, which I'm sure will happen in time. Yes the Supreme Court is on a roll. From saving terminally ill people from marijuana, seizing waterfront property for developers, to sandblasting away those vile Ten Commandments, you know they have our best interests at heart .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It remains to be seen if state & local governments are going to respect this decision. The decision itself did not declare such things as being unconstitutional or in violation of the sep of C&S doctrine. Instead it stated that such things demand scrutiny to determine whether their displays amount to government promoting religion.

 

This is why I have little respect for those who voted in favor of this ruling.

First of again it separates religion from philosophy. So it's ok for scientologists to put a doctrine in a court room because they are not a "religion" per-se? It's ridiculous. But even worse is their reference to "religion" in general. The doctrine for sep of C&S pertains to a predominance of any one religion over another. It does not imply that religion in general be treated as a taboo. Yet that is exactly what these recent rulings amount to by the USSC on matters of religion.

 

The ramifications are great. The conservative groups just got a shot in the arm now to be more aggressive in getting out the vote. There have already been two attempts at ratifying an amendment supporting school prayer & the last one was narrowly defeated. I can imagine this decision to broaden that attempt by amending the doctrine itself to clarify how it is to be interpreted. The doctrine as it has been interpreted by the USSC amounts to nothing more than censorship & discrimination against those who CHOOSE to believe in a spiritual world.

 

What is the difference between religion & philosophy? One is based predominantly on a spiritualistic moral point of view & the other is based predominantly n a humanistic moral POV. The judiciary has no right to censor or discriminate against either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jun 27, 2005 -> 10:28 AM)
This is why I have little respect for those who voted in favor of this ruling.

First of again it separates religion from philosophy.  So it's ok for scientologists to put a doctrine in a court room because they are not a "religion" per-se?  It's ridiculous.  But even worse is their reference to "religion" in general.  The doctrine for sep of C&S pertains to a predominance of any one religion over another.  It does not imply that religion in general be treated as a taboo.  Yet that is exactly what these recent rulings amount to by the USSC on matters of religion.

Here is your biggest flaw in your argument...the doctrine of sep of C&S pertains to dominance of one religion over another, exactly as you specify. So, how exactly does having a public entity order the display of the Ten Commandments, and only the ten commandments not constitute a public entity giving predominance to one religion over another?

 

The court said today in the Texas case that the line was not crossed because the ten commandments were not being displayed on their own. Therefore, that display was not giving predominance to any religion; it was acknowledging history.

 

Religion should actually be a taboo subject to the point that a public body should be able to give prominence to a religion just because the majority of either the public body or its constituents are of that religion. But if the document is displayed in such a way that it is not giving a dominant position to 1 religion over another, there's no problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all this talk of the (supposed) repression of Christianity, I'm reminded of Jon Stewart's recent take on this. "Perhaps we can one day live in a country where people are able to freely practice their religion in broad daylight. Perhaps even wear the symbol of their religion around their necks if they so choose. And maybe, God willing, we can even have an openly Christian president...or forty three of them...consecutively." :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jun 27, 2005 -> 05:28 PM)
It remains to be seen if state & local governments are going to respect this decision.  The decision itself did not declare such things as being unconstitutional or in violation of the sep of C&S doctrine.  Instead it stated that such things demand scrutiny to determine whether their displays amount to government promoting religion.

 

This is why I have little respect for those who voted in favor of this ruling.

First of again it separates religion from philosophy.  So it's ok for scientologists to put a doctrine in a court room because they are not a "religion" per-se?  It's ridiculous.  But even worse is their reference to "religion" in general.  The doctrine for sep of C&S pertains to a predominance of any one religion over another.  It does not imply that religion in general be treated as a taboo.  Yet that is exactly what these recent rulings amount to by the USSC on matters of religion.

 

The ramifications are great.  The conservative groups just got a shot in the arm now to be more aggressive in getting out the vote.  There have already been two attempts at ratifying an amendment supporting school prayer & the last one was narrowly defeated.  I can imagine this decision to broaden that attempt by amending the doctrine itself to clarify how it is to be interpreted.  The doctrine as it has been interpreted by the USSC amounts to nothing more than censorship & discrimination against those who CHOOSE to believe in a spiritual world. 

 

What is the difference between religion & philosophy?  One is based predominantly on a spiritualistic moral point of view & the other is based predominantly n a humanistic moral POV. The judiciary has no right to censor or discriminate against either.

 

You've gotta watch the slippery slope. If you have prayer in school, who's to say that a Christian teacher leads a Christian prayer in a class with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. If you want your children to have school prayer, send them to a religious school.

 

Plus, there have been a lot more religious wars than philosophical wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 27, 2005 -> 02:22 PM)
With all this talk of the (supposed) repression of Christianity, I'm reminded of Jon Stewart's recent take on this. "Perhaps we can one day live in a country where people are able to freely practice their religion in broad daylight.  Perhaps even wear the symbol of their religion around their necks if they so choose.  And maybe, God willing, we can even have an openly Christian president...or forty three of them...consecutively." :lol:

 

Such a repressed sect of America...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, it truly is open season on christians

 

i can't believe people would be so upset that a government courtroom which has to deal with human laws removes a doctrine reminding all that pass in there that they are to only worship one God...

 

kind of a slap in the face to Hindus isn't it?

 

You can have the ten commandments all over your yard, and nobody could do anything about it, so if you want to see them, go do that, but don't try to act like taking the ten commandments out of a supposedly secular government run courtroom is infringing on your freedom of religion rights, because in all honesty it is infringing on others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supremes did a sort of sidestep here and ruled with common sense.

 

Simply put, if its a sculpture, its probably ok. If it's in an exhibit showing other articles of faith OR other philosophical examples, its definitely ok. If its a framed copy in a courtroom with nothing else to put it in context it probably isn't. If its sewn into a judicial robe, by a wack job who says that Christians are being oppressed in Alabama, it's probably not ok also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the worst decisions the court has ever made. I find myself on the fence of both viewpoints. How can you rule the KC exhibit in the courtroom being a greater promotion of religion than the monument in Austin? In the KC exhibit you have symbols representing the 10 commandments. On the Austin monument you have quotes from the KJV Bible. Austin is ok, but KC is bad?

 

The decision represents nothing more than a win for the GOP. They can now continue their PR campaign against the anti-God court. The common person isn't going to look at the details. When you look at the details this actually is a victory for the God lovers. The court sanctioned religious symbols on government grounds. They caution those goverments to apply the greatest scrutiny in determining if such exhibits go so far as to say the government is promoting the religious context of that symbolism. Of course when these governments apply this scrutiny they will refer to the courts decision on KC & Austin & look over the justice's opinions.

 

So what are the guidelines for that scrutiny? The court ruled there are none. You have to take it case by case. Ok well we no Austin is ok & KC is not. But there has yet to be a lower court decision asking KC to remove their exhibit. So until the lower courts rule the exhibit stands. In the meantime the government in KC has the opportunity to tone down their exhibit some to make the lower court's job easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for school prayer it represents double taxation to the millions of families who send their kids to private schools because they feel strongly in religious exercise & education in school. It's shocking when you consider that public education started in America under Christian pretense.

 

In my opinion no-God should carry no greater weight than God. Both are philsophies of the creation of life & how that affects our behavior in our own lives. The no-God group should have no greater standing than the God group. When you have two groups of equal quality it's the quantity that should dictate policy. Anything else represents one group imposing a moral highground on the other which is what the very essence of the sep of C&S doctrine tries to prevent.

 

The court's lemon test upset that equality. It stacked the deck against the God group. It imposed it's own moral highground & violated the spirit of the sep of C&S. It made the no-God the de-facto philosophy of our nation.

That's the injustice built into the system & the only way to combat it is to manipulate the courts. But that injustice carries a double taxation policy that has nothing to do with religion. People who send their kids to private schools do not benefit from public education & therefore should not be taxed in supporting it. A school voucher system attempts to address that.

It is not government sponsorship of private schools. It is government's acknowledgement that these citizens are not making use of public education. The voucher is not based on the cost of private education. It's based on the avg cost a tax payer pays towards public education in their community.

 

Think about it in reverse . Suppose the court supported the God group as the de-facto standard for public education. Then the no-God group would be forced to choose private education. Would it be fair to burden them with taxation for public schools? Of course not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×