The Ten Commandments

[rtwngAvngr]

I appaud you on that thoughful, well-reasoned argument, and the certain conclusions which you are able to draw from this complex issue. It certainly gives me much to think about.

Thanks, but it's really just a list of facts.

There is no constitutional prohibition against religious symbols on public property. This is a false meme perpetrated by an activist, religion hating, left wing judiciary that's gotten too big for it's britches. The truth will set you free.

Which fact do you "disagree" with?

 

[MissileMan]

Secularism is "the belief that consideration of the present well-being of mankind should take precedence over religious considerations in civil affairs or public education." A secularist can be Christian, atheist, Bhuddist, etc. Please quit alleging that atheism and secularism are religions so you can whine about equal consideration under the constitution.

Some on the left are definitely out of control. "Under God" in the pledge, the cross on the seal of California, etc. are historical in significance and aren't bothering anyone except the looneys. They need to get over it.

That being said, trying to equate atheism or secularism with Christianity isn't helping your cause. The absence of a thing cannot be that thing. It's like trying to call a vacuum a gas.

Since Christians comprise some 80% of the U.S. population, your efforts should be to get people elected to government who will take steps to preserve these historical symbols. With that kind of majority, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The absence of a thing cannot be that thing. It's like trying to call a vacuum a gas.

Or calling a nativity scene a law.

 

[musicman]

As I have stated before, I am no legal scholar. However, here is how the situation shakes out - as clearly and logically as I can see it.

The U.S. Constitution clearly states that Congress (the branch of government which enacts laws) has no business making any laws establishing a state religion.

Further, the Constitution states that any power not granted specifically to the federal government automatically reverts to the states, or to the people.

Ergo, matters of behavior such as religion are clearly the province of individual communities to decide for themselves.


However we managed to get from there to the place where a Federal judge can forbid my little community from displaying the Ten Commandments, a Nativity scene, or anything else it deems appropriate, is the degree to which we have strayed from the clear intent of our founding fathers. This is where the work of restoring our way of life must begin.

I think we're going to have to consider the possibility that the 14th Amendment, as written and interpreted, is bad law; well-intentioned bad law - to be sure - but bad law just the same. It appears to insinuate the Federal Government - specifically, the courts - into matters that are clearly, by the constitutional decree of our founding fathers, the purview of individual communities. The whole spirit of decentralization and the devolutionn of power has been fouled.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Did you give an example? There was some blathering on about homosexuals or something, but I disregarded it as incoherent rambling.

Well, of course you would disregard the teaching of anal sex in today's classrooms as "incoherent rambling:" That is because you are a pinheaded liberal who cannot see any further than his own nose which is obviously stuck up the butt of the liberal establishment.

Somehow teaching young children about anal sex et al does not bother you, but the placement of a placard of the 10 Commandments in a courtroom does. That is ALL I need to know in order to know that you have a very screwed up outlook on life, moral and otherwise, and you are definitely someone who I would not want you teaching my children in any capacity nor would I want you representing me in any sort of political capacity either. In other words, if you came into my space I would do everything I could to get you gone. That is partly what local politics are all about in case you didn't know. Not every little decision is supposed to come down from on high from Ruth Bad Girl Ginsberg.

Are there people who go overboard because they have too much time on their hands and try to change the pledge? Sure. But it is not the instances that matter, it is the principles behind these silly exhortations that should be remembered and cherished.

You haven't a clue as to who these people are, do you? These are not people who just "have too much time on their hands" as you say. There is a very definite reason why they are attacking all sorts of religious references in our society. Get a clue. But then you are probably just another close-minded myopic liberal.

As for the beliefs of individuals and the public square. . .
Individuals do not have the right to erect monuments on government property. Only the government and its representatives may do that. Try it once and you will see. However, on public property (and pretty much all public places that aren't in use by the government including the sidewalk in front of the courthouse or even the courthouse steps), courts have always held that individuals speaking, rallying, yelling, carrying signs, or anything else short of erecting permanent displays (which require government permission) is permissible. That has never changed.

A judge is a representative of the government. So then he should be able to display The 10 Commandments around his courtroom, shouldn't he? That's what you are saying but that's not what you mean. (typical liberal doublespeak) If you actually believed what you just said (i.e., Only the government and its representatives may do that) you would have NO problem with the display of The Ten Commandments or any other symbol with a religious connotation such as a nativity scene in front of a public library which was approved by the head librarian, another government person. However, your compatriots and the ACLU have severely attacked Judge Moore in Alabama. Quite the opposite of what you are saying, dimwit.

I appreciate that you want the Ten Commandments posted in the courtroom, but whether that should be permitted, and what it means to our cherished beliefs about government and religion and the extent they should be permitted to intertwine is another issue - perhaps a more complicated issue than you can comprehend.

I can appreciate your superiority complex as it is an attitude gone rampant among your liberal elite circles and you probably don't even know how much it has affected you and your approach on life. Savage is right when he calls liberalism a mental disorder. If your side wins, someday your supposedly cherished beliefs about "separation of church and state" are going to come back and haunt you when you finally realize the folly of your position. However, then it will be too late. Comprehend that, fool.

 

[5stringJeff]

you are a pinheaded liberal
...
you are probably just another close-minded myopic liberal.
...
dimwit
...
fool.

Argue your point, but please keep it civil. The better name-caller is not the better debater.

- The R/E Mod.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Argue your point, but please keep it civil. The better name-caller is not the better debater.

- The R/E Mod.

The two can coexist in the same personage. Take me for instance.

 

[ReillyT]

I won't bother responding to the majority of your post, for instance that section that equates free expression rights of private individuals with free expression rights of judges in their roles as judges, because that was already discussed earlier in the thread.

However, I do want to piece together two pieces of your last post... for fun.

you are a pinheaded liberal who cannot see any further than his own nose which is obviously stuck up the butt of the liberal establishment.

But then you are probably just another close-minded myopic liberal.

Savage is right when he calls liberalism a mental disorder.

Perhaps I should be more open-minded.

 

[ReillyT]

I actually will make one little point.

A judge is a representative of the government. So then he should be able to display The 10 Commandments around his courtroom, shouldn't he?

While it is true that a judge is a representative of the government, he and the government as a whole, are bound by the establishment clause. The establishment clause protects private individuals by limiting the actions of government (and government representatives).

We can disagree about what exactly the establishment clause means, what it allows, and what it forbids, but it is important to keep in mind who it was meant to restrict and who it was meant to protect.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I actually will make one little point.



While it is true that a judge is a representative of the government, he and the government as a whole, are bound by the establishment clause. The establishment clause protects private individuals by limiting the actions of government (and government representatives).

We can disagree about what exactly the establishment clause means, what it allows, and what it forbids, but it is important to keep in mind who it was meant to restrict and who it was meant to protect.

A display of the ten commandments is not a law establishing religion, and as such, is in no conflict with the constitution.

 

[ReillyT]

A display of the ten commandments is not a law establishing religion, and as such, is in no conflict with the constitution.

This issue was also amply discussed earlier in the thread, and the reasons for its application to the actions of government representatives or lower levels of government was explained.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This issue was also amply discussed earlier in the thread, and the reasons for its application to the actions of government representatives or lower levels of government was explained.

yes. poorly and unconvincingly. Ten commandment displays are simply constitutional. It's true.

 

[ReillyT]

yes. poorly and unconvincingly. Ten commandment displays are simply constitutional. It's true.

OK. I think this thread may have run its course. It was nice chatting with all of you about this. Have a nice day and perhaps we will chat somewhere else.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

OK. I think this thread may have run its course. It was nice chatting with all of you about this. Have a nice day and perhaps we will chat somewhere else.

Bye, and you're wrong! Have a nice day.