Supreme Court Backs Push To Remove Ten Commandments Monument

[Windparadox]

The article (or a least the portion you posted) ... Doesn't present an accurate portrayal of what actually happened involving The Supreme Court of the United States.SCOTUS didn't side with either side ... They refused to hear the case ... And in a traditional manner, gave no reason as to why they came to that decision.The court nor justices comment on cases they don't consider ... And they can return or uphold previous verdicts for any number of reasons (legal or procedural).It would be a better idea wait until SCOTUS actually hears a case and makes a ruling ... Before anyone (ACLU) starts suggesting they won anything..

`
`
When I post an article for discussion, I usually quote the first few lines. As I always link the source where it came from, it's up to the person to read the rest.

 

[BlackSand]

When I post an article for discussion, I usually quote the first few lines. As I always link the source where it came from, it's up to the person to read the rest.

Well ... It is safe to say I discussed it.
And ... It is safe to say that the part you quoted and focused on isn't an accurate description of what occurred.

Is there anything else you like to discuss about it ...

.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Didn't they learn yet that bringing down these monuments just makes more people come out to support them?

Amen to this. Removing them doesn't mean that what is on them doesn't exist anymore any ways.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Windparadox]

Well ... It is safe to say I discussed it.And ... It is safe to say that the part you quoted and focused on isn't an accurate description of what occurred.Is there anything else you like to discuss about it ... .

`
It's also safe to say, you didn't read the entire article. Not surprising however.

 

[BlackSand]

It's also safe to say, you didn't read the entire article. Not surprising however.

There is nothing in the article that changes the position that SCOTUS took ... Because they didn't hear the case.
They don't decide cases they haven't heard ... And don't comment on why they don't take a case.
They don't comment on why they don't take a case ... Because they don't want nit-wits assuming anything from what they didn't decide.

The article you posted is full of conjecture based on assumptions about a something the court didn't hear or decide.
To assume their refusal to hear the case means anything other than the fact they didn't take the case ... Is stupid ... Feel free to be stupid if you care to.

.

 

[Windparadox]

There is nothing in the article that changes the position that SCOTUS took ... Because they didn't hear the case.
They don't decide cases they haven't heard and don't comment on why they don't take a case.To assume their refusal to hear the case means anything other than the fact they didn't take the case ... Is stupid ... Feel free to be stupid if you care to.

`
If that's what you believe, then so be it.

 

[BlackSand]

There is nothing in the article that changes the position that SCOTUS took ... Because they didn't hear the case.
They don't decide cases they haven't heard and don't comment on why they don't take a case.To assume their refusal to hear the case means anything other than the fact they didn't take the case ... Is stupid ... Feel free to be stupid if you care to.

`
If that's what you believe, then so be it.

It isn't a belief ... It's what they did and what they don't do.
It doesn't require belief ... Your fantasy it means something it doesn't is what requires belief.

.

 

[Snouter]

Meanwhile, giant, ugly ass candlestick things which originally represented planet worship, will be installed all over the country on public property in December to observe a Jewish holiday called Channakah, a clear violation of church and state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

`

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a lower court that ordered a New Mexico city to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the lawn outside City Hall. Civil liberties advocates behind the case called the decision involving the city of Bloomfield a victory for the separation of church and state.

ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson said it sends a “strong message that the government should not be in the business of picking and choosing which sets of religious beliefs enjoy special favor in the community.”However, David Cortman, a senior counsel and vice president of U.S. litigation with Alliance Defending Freedom, said the outcome did nothing to resolve confusion in lower courts involving such monuments.

“Americans shouldn’t be forced to censor religion’s role in history simply to appease someone who is offended by it or who has a political agenda to remove all traces of religion from the public square,” said Cortman, whose group represented the city of Bloomfield".- Source​

`
`
Struggles with monuments. With this one, it;s the age old question of separation of church and state. I agree with with it, but perhaps for different reasons. If a city uses tax payer dollars or publicly owned land, the constitutional question, however arguable, still remains. The courts have continually ruled in favor of the separation clause. The city of Bloomfield's defense of the document, as an American historical document, holds no water.

What's to prevent other cities who may want to erect religious themed monuments representing their particulate faith, such as the Quran, Talmud, Regina Satanas, et al? I say, leave well enough alone. Remove it.
`

If the Muslims wanted to construct huge monuments to the Paedophile Prophet and The Qur'an then you Leftists would be fully supporting them and don't say you wouldn't and anyone against it would be called a bigot.

It's just Christianity and Judaism that Leftists fanatically hate.

Wrong as usual, just another ridiculous lie from the right, and more hate and bigotry from the right.

Establishment Clause jurisprudence applies equally to all religions, and religious expression endorsed by government in violation of the Establishment Clause will be invalidated by the courts, regardless of that religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ruled in favor of the separation clause

What separation clause? There is no such clause in the Constitution.

`
Duh.

"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an ..." - Source

No, duh! That is a complete fabrication. The fact you cited it does not mean anything except you cited a fabrication.

Notice is says nothing about a "separation clause".

Conservatives’ ignorance is exceeded only by their stupidity.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

It is a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law – beyond dispute – that it was the original intent of the Founding Generation that government and religion be kept separate, that government not act to endorse a particular religion, and that government seeking to conjoin church and state is prohibited by the Constitution. (see Everson v. Board of Education (1947))

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘“Americans shouldn’t be forced to censor religion’s role in history simply to appease someone who is offended by it or who has a political agenda to remove all traces of religion from the public square,” said Cortman, whose group represented the city of Bloomfield.’ ibid

Nonsense.

No one is being ‘forced’ to do anything.

No one is seeking to “remove all traces of religion from the public square.”

And this issue has nothing to do with anyone being ‘offended.’

The issue concerns religious doctrine and dogma being given the force and authority of law through government endorsement, jeopardizing our must fundamental rights and protected liberties.

It is government declaring that adherents of Judeo-Christian theology are accepted participants in the making of laws and public policy, and those who are not are rendered political outsiders, excluded from government participation.

The Founding Generation understood well how religion could be used by government as a powerful political weapon capable of destroying political opposition – hence the Framers’ mandate to keep government and religion separate.

 

[Windparadox]

Wrong as usual, just another ridiculous lie from the right, and more hate and bigotry from the right.Establishment Clause jurisprudence applies equally to all religions, and religious expression endorsed by government in violation of the Establishment Clause will be invalidated by the courts, regardless of that religion.

`
`
There are millions of "US Constitutional experts" online. They are a dime a dozen. Not worth my time with.

 

[Political Junky]

Great

 

[Political Junky]

The Republican Christian has to bring their bible to congress and say prayers, why is that, they are Christian on the outside, not inside.

Far Right always goes religious. Gives them control, I guess.

 

[Penelope]

Already posted this LAST WEEK

Didn't they learn yet that bringing down these monuments just makes more people come out to support them?

That's fine, people can support the monuments, but they should also support the CONSTITUTION.

The Constitution should stop being used as a weapon that only benefits the psychotic leftist nut-jobs. Any other time you leftist pricks claim the CONSTITUTION IS OLD AND OUT DATED suddenly it seems to still have a function.

Who is We the people?

You might want to read this article:
For years, conservatives have been trying to rally a two-thirds majority of states around a balanced budget amendment. They came close in 2014 then stalled until this spring. In March, Arizona became the seventh state to call for a constitutional convention—or maybe the ninth, depending on how you're counting. Texas was probably lucky No. 11 in May. Last week Governor Scott Walker urged Wisconsin lawmakers to bring the total to 30. We'll find out this week if he persuaded them. Just 34 states are needed.

How Conservatives Are Trying to Rewrite the Constitution

 

[BuckToothMoron]

`

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a lower court that ordered a New Mexico city to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the lawn outside City Hall. Civil liberties advocates behind the case called the decision involving the city of Bloomfield a victory for the separation of church and state.

ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson said it sends a “strong message that the government should not be in the business of picking and choosing which sets of religious beliefs enjoy special favor in the community.”However, David Cortman, a senior counsel and vice president of U.S. litigation with Alliance Defending Freedom, said the outcome did nothing to resolve confusion in lower courts involving such monuments.

“Americans shouldn’t be forced to censor religion’s role in history simply to appease someone who is offended by it or who has a political agenda to remove all traces of religion from the public square,” said Cortman, whose group represented the city of Bloomfield".- Source​

`
`
Struggles with monuments. With this one, it;s the age old question of separation of church and state. I agree with with it, but perhaps for different reasons. If a city uses tax payer dollars or publicly owned land, the constitutional question, however arguable, still remains. The courts have continually ruled in favor of the separation clause. The city of Bloomfield's defense of the document, as an American historical document, holds no water.

What's to prevent other cities who may want to erect religious themed monuments representing their particulate faith, such as the Quran, Talmud, Regina Satanas, et al? I say, leave well enough alone. Remove it.
`

Full disclosure- I am not affiliated with any church or religion, and I can’t remember the last time I attended or participated in any religious activity. With that said, I couldn’t disagree more. This is a city which should have the right to erect any sort of monument they like that is not subversive to the federal government. And your argument with respect to a city deciding to erect some sort of Muslim monument is fatally flawed in 2 ways. The first way is same as my previous position; the second is that if there were a city in this country which was primarily Muslim, and they erected a statue of Muhammad in front of the county court house, the PC Libs in this country would never consider making them remove it.

The reality is this country was founded and conceived based on Judeo Christian values. The Declaration of Independence cites the existence of God giving man certain rights, so the idea that any reference to god or religion is anti-American is absurd.

 

[Penelope]

`

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a lower court that ordered a New Mexico city to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the lawn outside City Hall. Civil liberties advocates behind the case called the decision involving the city of Bloomfield a victory for the separation of church and state.

ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson said it sends a “strong message that the government should not be in the business of picking and choosing which sets of religious beliefs enjoy special favor in the community.”However, David Cortman, a senior counsel and vice president of U.S. litigation with Alliance Defending Freedom, said the outcome did nothing to resolve confusion in lower courts involving such monuments.

“Americans shouldn’t be forced to censor religion’s role in history simply to appease someone who is offended by it or who has a political agenda to remove all traces of religion from the public square,” said Cortman, whose group represented the city of Bloomfield".- Source​

`
`
Struggles with monuments. With this one, it;s the age old question of separation of church and state. I agree with with it, but perhaps for different reasons. If a city uses tax payer dollars or publicly owned land, the constitutional question, however arguable, still remains. The courts have continually ruled in favor of the separation clause. The city of Bloomfield's defense of the document, as an American historical document, holds no water.

What's to prevent other cities who may want to erect religious themed monuments representing their particulate faith, such as the Quran, Talmud, Regina Satanas, et al? I say, leave well enough alone. Remove it.
`

Full disclosure- I am not affiliated with any church or religion, and I can’t remember the last time I attended or participated in any religious activity. With that said, I couldn’t disagree more. This is a city which should have the right to erect any sort of monument they like that is not subversive to the federal government. And your argument with respect to a city deciding to erect some sort of Muslim monument is fatally flawed in 2 ways. The first way is same as my previous position; the second is that if there were a city in this country which was primarily Muslim, and they erected a statue of Muhammad in front of the county court house, the PC Libs in this country would never consider making them remove it.

The reality is this country was founded and conceived based on Judeo Christian values. The Declaration of Independence cites the existence of God giving man certain rights, so the idea that any reference to god or religion is anti-American is absurd.

Judeo was not put in front of Christian until 1948. The Declaration of Independence (is not a ruling document) never names a god, God is a generic name, same as Creator, Providence.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

`

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a lower court that ordered a New Mexico city to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the lawn outside City Hall. Civil liberties advocates behind the case called the decision involving the city of Bloomfield a victory for the separation of church and state.

ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson said it sends a “strong message that the government should not be in the business of picking and choosing which sets of religious beliefs enjoy special favor in the community.”However, David Cortman, a senior counsel and vice president of U.S. litigation with Alliance Defending Freedom, said the outcome did nothing to resolve confusion in lower courts involving such monuments.

“Americans shouldn’t be forced to censor religion’s role in history simply to appease someone who is offended by it or who has a political agenda to remove all traces of religion from the public square,” said Cortman, whose group represented the city of Bloomfield".- Source​

`
`
Struggles with monuments. With this one, it;s the age old question of separation of church and state. I agree with with it, but perhaps for different reasons. If a city uses tax payer dollars or publicly owned land, the constitutional question, however arguable, still remains. The courts have continually ruled in favor of the separation clause. The city of Bloomfield's defense of the document, as an American historical document, holds no water.

What's to prevent other cities who may want to erect religious themed monuments representing their particulate faith, such as the Quran, Talmud, Regina Satanas, et al? I say, leave well enough alone. Remove it.
`

Full disclosure- I am not affiliated with any church or religion, and I can’t remember the last time I attended or participated in any religious activity. With that said, I couldn’t disagree more. This is a city which should have the right to erect any sort of monument they like that is not subversive to the federal government. And your argument with respect to a city deciding to erect some sort of Muslim monument is fatally flawed in 2 ways. The first way is same as my previous position; the second is that if there were a city in this country which was primarily Muslim, and they erected a statue of Muhammad in front of the county court house, the PC Libs in this country would never consider making them remove it.

The reality is this country was founded and conceived based on Judeo Christian values. The Declaration of Independence cites the existence of God giving man certain rights, so the idea that any reference to god or religion is anti-American is absurd.

Judeo was not put in front of Christian until 1948. The Declaration of Independence (is not a ruling document) never names a god, God is a generic name, same as Creator, Providence.

So? The fact is the country has a foundation based on religious values. I believe the SCOTUS would rule on this issue the same way they ruled on a city erecting Nativity scenes, fully within the rights of the city and compliant with the constitution. Check it out-
Lynch v. Donnelly - Wikipedia
The Supreme Court reversed previous rulings in a vote of 5–4, ruling that the display was not an effort to advocate a particular religious message and had "legitimate secular purposes."

Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices White, Powell, Rehnquist, and O'Connor joined.[2] The Court held that the crèche did not violate the Establishment Clause based on the test created in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). They ruled that the crèche is a passive representation of religion and that there was "insufficient evidence to establish that the inclusion of the crèche is a purposeful or surreptitious effort to express some kind of subtle governmental advocacy of a particular religious" view. They also stated that the Constitution "affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any."

 

[Penelope]

Well they are not even using the real commandments that God wrote according to the Scriptures, they had best get it right.

Exodus 34New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Chapter 34

Renewal of the Tablets. 1 The Lord said to Moses: “Cut two stone tablets like the former, that I may write on them the words[a] which were on the former tablets that you broke. 2 Get ready for tomorrow morning, when you are to go up Mount Sinai and there present yourself to me on the top of the mountain. 3 No one shall come up with you, and let no one even be seen on any part of the mountain;"> even the sheep and the cattle are not to graze in front of this mountain.” 4 Moses then cut two stone tablets like the former, and early the next morning he went up Mount Sinai as the Lord had commanded him, taking in his hand the two stone tablets.

Religious laws:

Religious Laws. 10 The Lord said: Here is the covenant I will make. Before all your people I will perform marvels never before done in any nation anywhere on earth, so that all the people among whom you live may see the work of the Lord. Awe-inspiring are the deeds I will perform with you! 11 As for you, observe what I am commanding you today.

See, I am about to drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land that you are to enter; lest they become a snare among you. 13 Tear down their altars; smash their sacred stones, and cut down their asherahs.14 You shall not bow down to any other god, for the Lord—“Jealous”[e] his name—is a jealous God. 15 Do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land; else, when they prostitute themselves with their gods and sacrifice to them, one of them may invite you and you may partake of the sacrifice. 16 And when you take their daughters as wives for your sons, and their daughters prostitute themselves with their gods, they will make your sons do the same.

17 You shall not make for yourselves molten gods.

18 You shall keep the festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days at the appointed time in the month of Abib you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you; for in the month of Abib you came out of Egypt.

19 To me belongs every male that opens the womb among all your livestock, whether in the herd or in the 20 The firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. The firstborn among your sons you shall redeem.

No one shall appear before me empty-handed.

21 Six days you may but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the seasons of plowing and harvesting you must rest.

22 You shall keep the feast of Weeks with the first fruits of the wheat harvest, likewise, the feast of the Ingathering at the close of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men shall appear before the Lord, the Lord God of Israel. 24 Since I will drive out the nations before you and enlarge your territory, no one will covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the Lord, your God.

25 You shall not offer me the blood of sacrifice with anything leavened, nor shall the sacrifice of the Passover feast be kept overnight for the next day.

26 The choicest first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the Lord, your God.

You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.>

Radiance of Moses’ Face. 27 Then the Lord said to Moses: Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel