Why are the 10 commandments so bad to display?

[acludem]

Perhaps we should display the Code of Hammurabi in front of every courthouse. Or maybe the Napoleonic Codes. Oh wait, those aren't based on religion. Maybe we should post Kosher laws in front of every courthouse, boy that would have Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell screaming bloody murder, wouldn't it?

Maybe you'd like to have the Islamic Laws from the Quran? Oh yeah, we hate Muslims. Nope, just the good old Judeo-Christian 10 commandments....but I ask again...which version?


acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
This limitation that you have put on the amendment process is not in the Constitution. Where are you getting it from, and how can you use it to justify your stance if it is not a Constitutional limitation?

CONTEXT.

I illustrated more than once already that the Constitution cannot be the supreme law of the land if it can be subverted by lower levels.

Seriously, you REALLY have to create your own wording and logic to believe otherwise if you sit down and let the Constitution define its own authority.

The problem is that we no longer sit down and do the proper neutral analysis of Constitutional authority because it conflicts with what we have done.

We look at what is said, think it can't be right becasue of changes we have made since then, and then we apply our subversion to redefining the Constitution.

That isn't a neutral analysis, that is redefining our Constitution by the filter of our own twisted experiencial view.

It is like re-writing history books because of opinion of what people were like instead of what people DID.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy


I illustrated more than once already that the Constitution cannot be the supreme law of the land if it can be subverted by lower levels.

Was this around the same time you disproved evolution?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Was this around the same time you disproved evolution?

Was that supposed to be some sort of discrediting?

 

[dilloduck]

you got one finally !

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Was that supposed to be some sort of discrediting?

As you can see, it's just question concerning the timeframe of two tasks and when they occurred, relative to each other. A little slow on the uptake, eh?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
As you can see, it's just question concerning the timeframe of two tasks and when they occurred, relative to each other. A little slow on the uptake, eh?

If it WERE a discrediting, then YES, I would be.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
If it WERE a discrediting, then YES, I would be.

Ok. genius. It was a discrediting. The point is: you haven't actually proven half the things you claim you have. You just lie about it.

 

[Trademark 36]

once again liberalism has taken rights away from the majority and given it to the exstremist minority which is so true of so many issues its absurd.

 

[acludem]

"once again liberalism has taken rights away from the majority and given it to the exstremist minority which is so true of so many issues its absurd." - Trademark 36



acludem

 

[Trademark 36]

I dont hate liberalism or even disagree with all the liberal ideas but you gave the typical response which shows yoyr intelligence
the end

 

[007]

Originally posted by Trademark 36
I dont hate liberalism or even disagree with all the liberal ideas but you gave the typical response which shows yoyr intelligence
the end

There are much more intelligent liberals here. Sorry that sounds like an oxymoron but.....

 

[Trademark 36]

I certainly dont think that a liberal view is unintelligent,I just think some of the time the view is based on a stubborn view that doesnt look at all the aspects of a situation.I dont think that liberals are idiots or even close to being dumb or uneducated

 

[nbdysfu]

Because the truth hurts?
Because the fact that what (would today be considered) fundamentalist christians codified our initial laws, including the right to free speech which the left is so very wanting of, as their own?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Fundamentalist Christians are up in arms about the issue of the 10 Commandments because it appears to be a direct threat to their beliefs.

The removal of the monument bearing the 10 commandments from a courthouse was done because its placement by a public official in a seat of local government was tantamount to state support of religion. It was not an attack on that religion, no matter how one wishes to parse it. It was the correct thing to do, and would remain correct if the monoment was graven with Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or any other religious scripture.

Now, If they wished to place monuments graven with theaching of ALL of the world's great religions in the courthouse, it would be quite acceptable. This would provide visitors the opportunity to observe and appreciate the similarities between all of these religions, and also to understand that there is more than one path to the divine.

The only threat posed to fundamentalist Christianity in this nation is in the the minds of those who posit such beleifs. Their view that the constitutional separation of church and state poses a threat to their religion is mistaken.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But bully, the constitution says "Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion"; a ten commandments display is not a law regarding the establishment of relgion. "separation of church and state" is an invented notion.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
But bully, the constitution says "Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion"; a ten commandments display is not a law regarding the establishment of relgion. "separation of church and state" is an invented notion.

Regarding also means "for" or "against" which would mean that government cannot enforce ANY law upon religion INCLUDING removing a monument such as that.

They could only impeach for bad behavior which is completely non-existent in this instance since:

1. The foundation of the law is the 10 Commandments
2. It was his statement it is his PERSONAL belief.

If another jusdge did this with the koran, the government could do no such actions against him either.

-Until a beheading or something takes place....
:

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Trademark 36
I dont hate liberalism or even disagree with all the liberal ideas but you gave the typical response which shows yoyr intelligence
the end

Um, I think it was you who gave the typical liberal-bashing comment.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Regarding also means "for" or "against" which would mean that government cannot enforce ANY law upon religion INCLUDING removing a monument such as that.

They could only impeach for bad behavior which is completely non-existent in this instance since:

1. The foundation of the law is the 10 Commandments
2. It was his statement it is his PERSONAL belief.

If another jusdge did this with the koran, the government could do no such actions against him either.

-Until a beheading or something takes place....
:

The foundation of American jurisprudence has its roots in English Common Law and the Magna Carta.

As for personal beliefs, they are just that...personal beliefs. If the judge in question wanted to express them, he could've done so outside of the purview of his office, which is a government office, and thus avoided the whole drama which he created.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
The foundation of American jurisprudence has its roots in English Common Law and the Magna Carta.

That has no bearing on anything at hand.

As for personal beliefs, they are just that...personal beliefs. If the judge in question wanted to express them, he could've done so outside of the purview of his office, which is a government office, and thus avoided the whole drama which he created.

And, by Constitution, he could do that INSIDE as well.

Your argument is not an arguement.