U.S. Supreme court deals major blow to the ten commandments

Personal religious belief is not a requirement for American citizenship, but acknowledgment of our national belief that human equality and rights come from an authority beyond human will is a moral duty of citizenship. Its rejection constitutes a denial of natural rights and human equality, and is inconsistent with ordered liberty.
 
I didn't know we were built on the ten commandments?
I would think an issue like this should be left up to the state...and maybe even the local governments to decide. If the people of that area want the Ten Commandments displayed, then they should be allowed to.

Separation of Church & State only goes so far in terms of the United States not having an "official religion" imo

If not, then what will they rule to be unconstitutional next? The pledge of allegiance? "One Nation Under God
.."? Our currency " In God We Trust".?

Etc.
The First Amendment ~ Freedom FROM religion, is not up for popular vote.

The first amendment doesn't state freedom FROM religion.

It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Basically means Congress won't make a law forcing people to follow a certain religion nor will they make a law that prohibits people from following a certain religion.

How is displaying the Ten Commandments forcing people to follow a religion?

Putting specific religious law in public places like the courthouse is effectively endorsing a specific religion and implying religious law has a place in our courts.

Would you support a monument with elements of Islamic law inscribed?

Our courts are secular not sacred spaces. You are free in all other areas to promote your faith but keep it out of the courts.
Putting specific religious law in public places like the courthouse is effectively endorsing a specific religion and implying religious law has a place in our courts.

then why hasn't the figure of Moses on the Supreme court building been modified.

How is it different than putting the 10 Commandments in a local courthouse?
The ten commandments represent religious laws. Of a specfic religion.

The figure of Moses in the frieze above the Supreme Court presented in a context in which he is grouped within a set of historic lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Confucious, Mohammad, Lycurgis and others.
 
Personal religious belief is not a requirement for American citizenship, but acknowledgment of our national belief that human equality and rights come from an authority beyond human will is a moral duty of citizenship. Its rejection constitutes a denial of natural rights and human equality, and is inconsistent with ordered liberty.
We only have to acknowledge those rights in our treatment of our fellows. We do not have to acknowledge where they come from.
 
I didn't know we were built on the ten commandments?
I would think an issue like this should be left up to the state...and maybe even the local governments to decide. If the people of that area want the Ten Commandments displayed, then they should be allowed to.

Separation of Church & State only goes so far in terms of the United States not having an "official religion" imo

If not, then what will they rule to be unconstitutional next? The pledge of allegiance? "One Nation Under God
.."? Our currency " In God We Trust".?

Etc.
The First Amendment ~ Freedom FROM religion, is not up for popular vote.

The first amendment doesn't state freedom FROM religion.

It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Basically means Congress won't make a law forcing people to follow a certain religion nor will they make a law that prohibits people from following a certain religion.

How is displaying the Ten Commandments forcing people to follow a religion?

Putting specific religious law in public places like the courthouse is effectively endorsing a specific religion and implying religious law has a place in our courts.

Would you support a monument with elements of Islamic law inscribed?

Our courts are secular not sacred spaces. You are free in all other areas to promote your faith but keep it out of the courts.
Putting specific religious law in public places like the courthouse is effectively endorsing a specific religion and implying religious law has a place in our courts.

then why hasn't the figure of Moses on the Supreme court building been modified.

How is it different than putting the 10 Commandments in a local courthouse?
The ten commandments represent religious laws. Of a specfic religion.

The figure of Moses in the frieze above the Supreme Court presented in a context in which he is grouped within a set of historic lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Confucious, Mohammad, Lycurgis and others.
Still not seeing the separation.

and, considering the area, I doubt seriously many in his jurisdiction would now Hammurabi, Confucious, etc.
 
It in no way guarantees freedom from religion. Feel free to post the text.

It's trivial to do so, and it's already been done.

"no law respecting an establishment of religion"

"Respecting" in that context means "in regards to". No part of any government in the USA can make any sort of laws that are pro- or anti- any religion. They have to stay neutral on the subject. Posting the 10 commandments is definitely not being neutral.

Basic English. If conservatives would only learn it, along with basic logic and basic morality, they wouldn't constantly fail so hard with their whiny Constitutional, historical and moral revisionism. The funniest part is how they get so upset when you point out their revisionism.

It's obvious the founding fathers based the foundation of this country with a belief in God. The first amendment states that they can't force you or prevent you from following a religion. That's it. Doesn't say anything about the country not being founded on a belief in God though.

The pledge of allegiance and our currency all reference God. Should those be regarded as unconstitutional as well?
No....not true at all. Our Founding Fathers turned away from the European concept of Divine Right and the State dictating what religion you had to follow. Remember, the English Monarch was ALSO head of the church. Our Founding Fathers based the foundation of this country on Greek (Pagan) Democracy, Roman (Pagan) Republican government, and the Enlightenment ideas of people like John Locke and Montesqueue.

You don't seem to understand the difference between simply believing in God and forcing people to hold a certain religion or preventing people from practising a certain religion. The Founding Fathers didn't want to incorporate a specific religion into government...that does not mean they didn't believe in God nor does it mean that they didn't use God or their beliefs in God when founding this country.

God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, In just about every state's Constitution, on every piece of United States currency, in the pledge of allegiance, in just about every major speech throughout the history of the US, including speeches and memoirs from the Founding Fathers themselves. To deny that the Founding Fathers didn't base this country on a belief in God is nonsense. There's a HUGE difference between them basing this country on a belief in God vs. them not forcing it or preventing it through various religions, through the first amendment.
Where is your god mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,"

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."


All references to God.
 
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court took sides in a heated dispute over a Ten Commandments display on the lawn of a city hall building in Bloomfield, New Mexico, siding with lower courts that found its presence unconstitutional. It’s a conclusion to the City of Bloomfield v. Felix case that has the American Civil Liberties Union, among other groups, elated, heralding the move as a First Amendment victory. Meanwhile, conservative critics are less than content over the SCOTUS decision. David

U.S. Supreme Court Deals Major Blow to the Ten Commandments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You leftist assholes have no clue what you are doing as you strip this nation of everything we were built upon and as you retards of the ANTI American hate groups go around turning America into N. Korea you rejects won't realize what you've done until years later. That's how works assholes..............then we all pay for your stupidity even people from other Countries see and understand what is going on yet the very fkning assholes who live here can't see a thing. gawd you fkrs are so beyond idiots.

Forcing a city to remove a Ten Commandments display from public property turns America into North Korea?

What would you say if the City of Dearborn, Michigan decided to erect a monument of the five pillars of Islam in a city park?
 
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court took sides in a heated dispute over a Ten Commandments display on the lawn of a city hall building in Bloomfield, New Mexico, siding with lower courts that found its presence unconstitutional. It’s a conclusion to the City of Bloomfield v. Felix case that has the American Civil Liberties Union, among other groups, elated, heralding the move as a First Amendment victory. Meanwhile, conservative critics are less than content over the SCOTUS decision. David

U.S. Supreme Court Deals Major Blow to the Ten Commandments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You leftist assholes have no clue what you are doing as you strip this nation of everything we were built upon and as you retards of the ANTI American hate groups go around turning America into N. Korea you rejects won't realize what you've done until years later. That's how works assholes..............then we all pay for your stupidity even people from other Countries see and understand what is going on yet the very fkning assholes who live here can't see a thing. gawd you fkrs are so beyond idiots.
Uh, the Supreme Court is conservative
Not quite yet, we have 3 more geezers who have to kick the bucket and then the left will never win a SC decision ever again.
The Supreme court is stacked with Catholics and Jews, all of whom hold the 10 commandments in reverence. We already have many laws based on the commandments against murder, theft, and bearing false witness. Some of the other commandments are more troublesome for our society - such as having no other Gods, keeping the Sabbath holy, the bit about no graven images, statues, idols. How would capitalism exist without coveting? Adultery? Well, there goes Trump. Cursing? There goes just about everyone on this forum. Once again, it is a matter of image over substance. People like the OP cry about how the left is tearing down what the country was built upon, but under closer examination, they don't follow most of commandments anyway. In other words, hypocrisy.
 
No big deal. Meanwhile conservative judges at various levels are being elected at record pace, and on the bigger issues that matter the court is siding with conservatives.
 
I didn't know we were built on the ten commandments?
The First Amendment ~ Freedom FROM religion, is not up for popular vote.

The first amendment doesn't state freedom FROM religion.

It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Basically means Congress won't make a law forcing people to follow a certain religion nor will they make a law that prohibits people from following a certain religion.

How is displaying the Ten Commandments forcing people to follow a religion?

Putting specific religious law in public places like the courthouse is effectively endorsing a specific religion and implying religious law has a place in our courts.

Would you support a monument with elements of Islamic law inscribed?

Our courts are secular not sacred spaces. You are free in all other areas to promote your faith but keep it out of the courts.
Putting specific religious law in public places like the courthouse is effectively endorsing a specific religion and implying religious law has a place in our courts.

then why hasn't the figure of Moses on the Supreme court building been modified.

How is it different than putting the 10 Commandments in a local courthouse?
The ten commandments represent religious laws. Of a specfic religion.

The figure of Moses in the frieze above the Supreme Court presented in a context in which he is grouped within a set of historic lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Confucious, Mohammad, Lycurgis and others.
Still not seeing the separation.

and, considering the area, I doubt seriously many in his jurisdiction would now Hammurabi, Confucious, etc.
You dont see the difference between law givers and laws?

On entering a courthouse...is a monument to a set of religious laws in space that is ostensibly governed by secular law appropriate or is it an implied recognition of the authority of a specific religion?

Is one historic lawmaker among a group of historic lawmakers an implied recognition of a specific religion?
 
It's a symbol, just like the flag, just like the liberty bell, just like the artifacts from a civil war jesus christ no wonder this Country is in this mess.

Ahhh...a "symbol"...and what does that particular "symbol" represent?

Artifacts from the civil war represent what?
 
I didn't know we were built on the ten commandments?
The first amendment doesn't state freedom FROM religion.

It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Basically means Congress won't make a law forcing people to follow a certain religion nor will they make a law that prohibits people from following a certain religion.

How is displaying the Ten Commandments forcing people to follow a religion?

Putting specific religious law in public places like the courthouse is effectively endorsing a specific religion and implying religious law has a place in our courts.

Would you support a monument with elements of Islamic law inscribed?

Our courts are secular not sacred spaces. You are free in all other areas to promote your faith but keep it out of the courts.
Putting specific religious law in public places like the courthouse is effectively endorsing a specific religion and implying religious law has a place in our courts.

then why hasn't the figure of Moses on the Supreme court building been modified.

How is it different than putting the 10 Commandments in a local courthouse?
The ten commandments represent religious laws. Of a specfic religion.

The figure of Moses in the frieze above the Supreme Court presented in a context in which he is grouped within a set of historic lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Confucious, Mohammad, Lycurgis and others.
Still not seeing the separation.

and, considering the area, I doubt seriously many in his jurisdiction would now Hammurabi, Confucious, etc.
You dont see the difference between law givers and laws?

On entering a courthouse...is a monument to a set of religious laws in space that is ostensibly governed by secular law appropriate or is it an implied recognition of the authority of a specific religion?

Is one historic lawmaker among a group of historic lawmakers an implied recognition of a specific religion?
...is a monument to a set of religious laws in space that is ostensibly governed by secular law appropriate

Unless the judge is using the Commandments as a basis for his ruling, I see no problem.
 
Personal religious belief is not a requirement for American citizenship, but acknowledgment of our national belief that human equality and rights come from an authority beyond human will is a moral duty of citizenship. Its rejection constitutes a denial of natural rights and human equality, and is inconsistent with ordered liberty.

Horseshit. There is no God, and you're living a lie. Christians want us to believe that morality never existed until their Bible commanded it. But the fact is that morality has existed long before the Bible and Christianity. For example, Aesop's Fables were written 300+ years before Jesus was born and set out the same moral guidelines the Bible does, only with less raping, torturing, enslavement, and murder.
 
Says who? Show in the Constitution where the ten commandments aren't supposed to be on public land?

First Amendment, Barbie. Have one of the grown ups explain what the big words mean.

Oh, they have. Several times. But you children insist on your misinterpretation of Jefferson's response to some Baptists, and got a court to give it - quite illegally - Constitutional authority.
So....you don't believe there's a separation of church and state?

Oh, there certainly is, but not as expressed by the Left. The intent was to prevent the founding or recognition of a state religion.

There was never an intent to remove religion from the public square, nor was there any concerted attack on public expression prior to the 1950s, long after the Constitution became law.

The destruction of religion is a hallmark of totalitarianism. In America, it's easy enough to follow that sentiment to find the source.
 
Putting specific religious law in public places like the courthouse is effectively endorsing a specific religion and implying religious law has a place in our courts.

Would you support a monument with elements of Islamic law inscribed?

Our courts are secular not sacred spaces. You are free in all other areas to promote your faith but keep it out of the courts.
Putting specific religious law in public places like the courthouse is effectively endorsing a specific religion and implying religious law has a place in our courts.

then why hasn't the figure of Moses on the Supreme court building been modified.

How is it different than putting the 10 Commandments in a local courthouse?
The ten commandments represent religious laws. Of a specfic religion.

The figure of Moses in the frieze above the Supreme Court presented in a context in which he is grouped within a set of historic lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Confucious, Mohammad, Lycurgis and others.
Still not seeing the separation.

and, considering the area, I doubt seriously many in his jurisdiction would now Hammurabi, Confucious, etc.
You dont see the difference between law givers and laws?

On entering a courthouse...is a monument to a set of religious laws in space that is ostensibly governed by secular law appropriate or is it an implied recognition of the authority of a specific religion?

Is one historic lawmaker among a group of historic lawmakers an implied recognition of a specific religion?
...is a monument to a set of religious laws in space that is ostensibly governed by secular law appropriate

Unless the judge is using the Commandments as a basis for his ruling, I see no problem.
It's a problem for me. I don't want to see anyone's religious laws hailed by my local government. N.O. Go to church, live by whatever God's word floats your boat. But keep YOUR faith and YOUR beliefs to yourself. This is another invasion of Christianity into people's rights to equality and to reproductive rights because CHRISTIANS say so. Well, fuck that. I am not a Christian and I don't want my government waving a flag about it in front of their courthouse or making decisions based on those beliefs.
 
Says who? Show in the Constitution where the ten commandments aren't supposed to be on public land?

First Amendment, Barbie. Have one of the grown ups explain what the big words mean.

Oh, they have. Several times. But you children insist on your misinterpretation of Jefferson's response to some Baptists, and got a court to give it - quite illegally - Constitutional authority.
So....you don't believe there's a separation of church and state?

Oh, there certainly is, but not as expressed by the Left. The intent was to prevent the founding or recognition of a state religion.

There was never an intent to remove religion from the public square, nor was there any concerted attack on public expression prior to the 1950s, long after the Constitution became law.

The destruction of religion is a hallmark of totalitarianism. In America, it's easy enough to follow that sentiment to find the source.
How sad that your religion is destroyed if there are not monuments to it paid for them with our tax dollars. What a weak god.
 
Oh, there certainly is, but not as expressed by the Left. The intent was to prevent the founding or recognition of a state religion.

Right...so displays of religious imagery on and in public lands would be....state endorsement of religion.


There was never an intent to remove religion from the public square, nor was there any concerted attack on public expression prior to the 1950s, long after the Constitution became law.

Public expression, how? What do you mean? You mean no more prayer meetings in Public places? Good call because these were the kinds of prayer meetings that were happening:

1*8XU3sY_mbNlSFoUz1vccKQ.jpeg



The destruction of religion is a hallmark of totalitarianism. In America, it's easy enough to follow that sentiment to find the source.

Religion is totalitarianism...it's the belief of a higher authority. That is totalitarianism, pal. Sorry to burst your bubble.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top