Basis of Law

[YoungChristian]

Western civilization is founded upon the moral rules of conduct deriving from our Greek philosophical and Judeo-Christian religious traditions. Atheistic and agnostic liberal-socialists are moral free riders who benefit from living in a society ordered by the morality of spiritual religion, while sneering at spiritual religion and moral codes as simple-minded ignorance. At best, they do nothing to contribute to social order. Too many of them do everything in their power to discredit or to destroy the very source of social order. Without Judeo-Christian morality, they would be in the position of scientists and scholars in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia: working under orders for the collectivized National State.

 

[dmp]

Great...thanks for sharing.

 

[William Joyce]

There's nothing "Judeo" about Western Civilization, my friend. A Congressman once sat on the dais. He remarked, something about our Christian heritage. His aide tugged on his jacket sleeve and said, "Congressman, don't you mean Judeo-Christian?"

The Congressman cooly replied, "I meant what I said."

Booyah!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Western civilization is founded upon the moral rules of conduct deriving from our Greek philosophical and Judeo-Christian religious traditions. Atheistic and agnostic liberal-socialists are moral free riders who benefit from living in a society ordered by the morality of spiritual religion, while sneering at spiritual religion and moral codes as simple-minded ignorance. At best, they do nothing to contribute to social order. Too many of them do everything in their power to discredit or to destroy the very source of social order. Without Judeo-Christian morality, they would be in the position of scientists and scholars in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia: working under orders for the collectivized National State.

So, by your logic, anyone who is not Jewish or Christian is morally equivalent to a decadent and morally bankrupt Nazi or communist party aparatchik. I truly can't believe you mean that. But if you do, you have my profound sympathy. I have met many in this world who follow other religious paths, or even none at all, and who are as good and decent as any I have ever met. If you truly mean what you said, I would suggest you go back and read your scripture with an open heart and mind.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So, by your logic, anyone who is not Jewish or Christian is morally equivalent to a decadent and morally bankrupt Nazi or communist party aparatchik. I truly can't believe you mean that. But if you do, you have my profound sympathy. I have met many in this world who follow other religious paths, or even none at all, and who are as good and decent as any I have ever met. If you truly mean what you said, I would suggest you go back and read your scripture with an open heart and mind.

You're overstating, bully, he's just saying secular zealots really do not understand the degree to which our society has been structured and made successful by this foundation.

 

[YoungChristian]

So, by your logic, anyone who is not Jewish or Christian is morally equivalent to a decadent and morally bankrupt Nazi or communist party aparatchik. I truly can't believe you mean that. But if you do, you have my profound sympathy. I have met many in this world who follow other religious paths, or even none at all, and who are as good and decent as any I have ever met. If you truly mean what you said, I would suggest you go back and read your scripture with an open heart and mind.

All I meant is that liberal groups such as the ACLU are destroying a society that gave them a chance to come into being.

 

[Bullypulpit]

All I meant is that liberal groups such as the ACLU are destroying a society that gave them a chance to come into being.

Why then did the ACLU take up a case in Stafford County,Virginia. Members of the Cornerstone Baptist Church were barred from performing baptisms at the Falmouth Waterside Park.

The ACLU threatened a lawsuit on behalf of Cornerstone Baptist to open the park to the baptisms. Officials decided to permit baptisms in public parks.

For the full text, go here:

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141

Your perspective has been clouded by the nonsense some in the religious community spout about the ACLU being "anti-christian". Don't be afraid to learn something new which might contradict those views.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why then did the ACLU take up a case in Stafford County,Virginia. Members of the Cornerstone Baptist Church were barred from performing baptisms at the Falmouth Waterside Park.

The ACLU threatened a lawsuit on behalf of Cornerstone Baptist to open the park to the baptisms. Officials decided to permit baptisms in public parks.

For the full text, go here:

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141

Your perspective has been clouded by the nonsense some in the religious community spout about the ACLU being "anti-christian". Don't be afraid to learn something new which might contradict those views.

A needle in a haystack of communistic nihilism.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You're overstating, bully, he's just saying secular zealots really do not understand the degree to which our society has been structured and made successful by this foundation.

Then that's what YC should have said rather than equating atheists and agnostics with Nazis and communists. So, why don't you let YC speak for themselves.

 

[Bullypulpit]

A needle in a haystack of communistic nihilism.

No...You're simply unwilling to consider anything which might contradict your views. If you had the courage of your convictions you would visit the ACLU website and look at the work they do to protect religious freedoms.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No...You're simply unwilling to consider anything which might contradict your views. If you had the courage of your convictions you would visit the ACLU website and look at the work they do to protect religious freedoms.

No. The aclu as a whole is not worth it. It's done more harm than good.

 

[Bullypulpit]

No. The aclu as a whole is not worth it. It's done more harm than good.

Your proof?

 

[manu1959]

Western civilization is founded upon the moral rules of conduct deriving from our Greek philosophical and Judeo-Christian religious traditions. Atheistic and agnostic liberal-socialists are moral free riders who benefit from living in a society ordered by the morality of spiritual religion, while sneering at spiritual religion and moral codes as simple-minded ignorance. At best, they do nothing to contribute to social order. Too many of them do everything in their power to discredit or to destroy the very source of social order. Without Judeo-Christian morality, they would be in the position of scientists and scholars in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia: working under orders for the collectivized National State.

bullshit generalization :funnyface

 

[Bonnie]

No...You're simply unwilling to consider anything which might contradict your views. If you had the courage of your convictions you would visit the ACLU website and look at the work they do to protect religious freedoms.

ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Protect Religious Liberty in Ten Commandments Case

March 2, 2005




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [email protected]

WASHINGTON-The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government land and buildings in two separate cases, including a successful challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky to courthouse displays.

"The Ten Commandments play an important part in the spiritual lives of many Americans and it is precisely for this reason that the government should not be in the business of endorsing or promoting religious beliefs," said David A. Friedman, General Counsel for the ACLU of Kentucky, who argued before the Court today. "People should not be made to feel like second-class citizens in their own community because they may not share the prevailing religious view -- especially in a courthouse."

In the Kentucky case, a lower court found that Ten Commandments postings in courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski counties "conveyed a message of religious endorsement" and thus violated the constitutional principle of religious liberty. The appeals court upheld that ruling. The ACLU brought the lawsuit in 1999 on behalf of two citizens of each county, including Dave Howe, a 69-year-old retired radio broadcaster and son of a Baptist minister.

"I believe that attempts by governmental agencies, at any level, to endorse religious beliefs are an affront to those who do not necessarily share those particular beliefs," said Howe. "I have no quarrel with the Ten Commandments, but they don't belong in my courthouse."

At issue in the case are Ten Commandments displays that were posted in prominent locations in the McCreary and Pulaski county courthouses in 1999. County officials claimed that the Ten Commandments provide the foundation of American legal tradition. However, as many courts have found, the Ten Commandments are inherently religious principles and should not be promoted by government officials.

Religious leaders and members of the clergy have also raised concerns over the Ten Commandments postings and government interference in religious liberty. The counties are not only promoting religious beliefs, but have shown denominational favoritism by posting the text of the Protestant "King James" version of Ten Commandments, according to some religion experts. As a result of deep, theological disputes, there are at least five different versions of the Ten Commandments, including Jewish, Catholic and Lutheran texts.

"The Constitution guarantees each person the right to express belief in God without interference by the state," said Rev. Patrick Delahanty, a Roman Catholic priest in Louisville. "In order to protect religious freedom, the government must leave the promotion of religion to the church and neither aid nor hinder this legitimate church activity."

When the Court last considered this issue in 1980 -- in a challenge also brought by the ACLU of Kentucky -- it reversed a lower court ruling that had upheld a state law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Since that time, the ACLU and others, acting on behalf of local communities and religious leaders, have successfully challenged Ten Commandments postings and monuments in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and elsewhere.

"The relationship between individuals and their God, which is at the core of the Ten Commandments, is and should remain a private matter. It is not the government's business," said ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro.

For more information, including a copy of the ACLU’s brief, statements from clergy and clients, and fact sheets on Ten Commandments cases, go to: http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=17476&c=286.

For more information on the ACLU’s defense of religious liberty, go to: www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty.

Pleas tell me how this translates into protecting religious freedoms?? And spare me the usual obvious diatribe they spew??

 

[Bonnie]

ACLU of Ohio Victorious in Another Ten Commandments Case

July 14, 2004




Courtroom Display Was Religious, Not Secular, Appeals Court Rules

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CLEVELAND -- In a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, an appeals court today affirmed a lower court ruling that a public courtroom display of the Ten Commandments is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

The ACLU of Ohio filed the lawsuit after Judge James DeWeese hung a poster of the Ten Commandments in his Richland County courtroom in July 2000. In June 2002, United States District Court Judge Kathleen O’Malley declared the display unconstitutional and ordered that it be immediately removed.

In a 2-1 decision today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed, finding that the purpose of DeWeese's display was religious in nature and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The ACLU of Ohio is currently involved in two other Ten Commandments cases. The first, in Adams County in southern Ohio, involves Ten Commandments monuments outside of several area schools. The second, in Lucas County in northwest Ohio, involves a display of the Ten Commandments near the local courthouse.

For more information on this issue, go to http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertyMain.cfm


See the problem is The ACLU defines removing a plaque of the Ten commandments as "protecting religious freedom" which is intellectually dishonest spin!!

 

[musicman]

ACLU of Ohio Victorious in Another Ten Commandments Case

July 14, 2004




Courtroom Display Was Religious, Not Secular, Appeals Court Rules

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CLEVELAND -- In a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, an appeals court today affirmed a lower court ruling that a public courtroom display of the Ten Commandments is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

The ACLU of Ohio filed the lawsuit after Judge James DeWeese hung a poster of the Ten Commandments in his Richland County courtroom in July 2000. In June 2002, United States District Court Judge Kathleen O’Malley declared the display unconstitutional and ordered that it be immediately removed.

In a 2-1 decision today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed, finding that the purpose of DeWeese's display was religious in nature and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Well, there's only one problem with this ruling: James DeWeese is a COUNTY judge. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment doesn't apply to him. It expressly forbids Congress to make any law regarding the establishment of a state religion ("state" meaning NATIONAL, in this sense), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The whole point of this and other sections of the Constitution is to keep the federal government on a short leash. It is recognized as a necessary evil, and given a small, specific list of powers. Beyond these, it is insructed to butt out of the everday affairs of the people.

The leap from "Congress shall make no law...." to "No government AT ANY LEVEL shall as much as make a MENTION of religion" is pure fantasy. I have never seen so much error and flawed, agenda-driven interpretation arise from a single issue in my life. And, always - in the middle of it all - like cockroaches feasting on garbage - one finds the ACLU. Guardians of religious freedom, my big ass!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, there's only one problem with this ruling: James DeWeese is a COUNTY judge. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment doesn't apply to him. It expressly forbids Congress to make any law regarding the establishment of a state religion ("state" meaning NATIONAL, in this sense), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The whole point of this and other sections of the Constitution is to keep the federal government on a short leash. It is recognized as a necessary evil, and given a small, specific list of powers. Beyond these, it is insructed to butt out of the everday affairs of the people.

The leap from "Congress shall make no law...." to "No government AT ANY LEVEL shall as much as make a MENTION of religion" is pure fantasy. I have never seen so much error and flawed, agenda-driven interpretation arise from a single issue in my life. And, always - in the middle of it all - like cockroaches feasting on garbage - one finds the ACLU. Guardians of religious freedom, my big ass!

The ACLU protects the individual expression of religion, while working against government expression of religion and thus government endorsment of religion. But they also seem to misunderstand that religion, while personal, is never private and individuals, including our elected officials, will be influenced by their religious affiliations in the public arena. This does not constitute government endorsement of religion, unless those elected officials take actions or craft legislation that explicitly favors one religion over another.

The right has failed to understand that America was founded as a secular nation. The Constitution has more in common with the Magna Carta than with the Ten Commandments. Our elected officials are free to express their religious views so long as they don't try to enact them into law.

The display of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and other government offices open to the public, by government officials could be construed as govenment endorsment of religion. These officials can keep these displayed in their private chambers and offices to their hearts content.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The ACLU protects the individual expression of religion, while working against government expression of religion and thus government endorsment of religion. But they also seem to misunderstand that religion, while personal, is never private and individuals, including our elected officials, will be influenced by their religious affiliations in the public arena. This does not constitute government endorsement of religion, unless those elected officials take actions or craft legislation that explicitly favors one religion over another.

The right has failed to understand that America was founded as a secular nation. The Constitution has more in common with the Magna Carta than with the Ten Commandments. Our elected officials are free to express their religious views so long as they don't try to enact them into law.

The display of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and other government offices open to the public, by government officials could be construed as govenment endorsment of religion. These officials can keep these displayed in their private chambers and offices to their hearts content.

This agenda is not constitutionally supported. All the constitution says is "congress shall make no law regarding or prohibiting". A display of the ten commandments is not a law. Christmas decorations are not a law. Liberals are running amok due to their own hatred.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The ACLU protects the individual expression of religion, while working against government expression of religion and thus government endorsment of religion. But they also seem to misunderstand that religion, while personal, is never private and individuals, including our elected officials, will be influenced by their religious affiliations in the public arena. This does not constitute government endorsement of religion, unless those elected officials take actions or craft legislation that explicitly favors one religion over another.

The right has failed to understand that America was founded as a secular nation. The Constitution has more in common with the Magna Carta than with the Ten Commandments. Our elected officials are free to express their religious views so long as they don't try to enact them into law.

The display of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and other government offices open to the public, by government officials could be construed as govenment endorsment of religion. These officials can keep these displayed in their private chambers and offices to their hearts content.

So can you please tell us how any American citizen has been harmed in over 200 years by this so-called "endorsement" (not the establishment) of religion which you and the ACLU seem to be fearfully shaking in your boots about?

We could probably make a case that only good has come from the public's exposure to the Ten Commandments.

 

[Bonnie]

So can you please tell us how any American citizen has been harmed in over 200 years by this so-called "endorsement" (not the establishment) of religion which you and the ACLU seem to be fearfully shaking in your boots about?

We could probably make a case that only good has come from the public's exposure to the Ten Commandments.

Took the question right out of my mouth Eagle!!