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

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

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.

Even worse. The display of the ten commandments breaks commandment 2

No it doesn't.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

This is the dumbest argument I have ever seen from an atheist/agnostic. Good job, guy. Also, that's commandment 3.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Apparently, you deny God, who is the reason America is here.
You don't like it? YOU GTFO>
There's plenty of nations that deny God. The US is not one of them.

But that's the reason for their attack on America. Because it IS a Christina nation.
Nowhere else on Earth can they wreak so much havoc.

Theirs is all for the glory of Lucifer.

 

[Coyote]

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.

I do...because appearances matter, especially in a court of law. I don't have a problem with innocent stuff - like religious displays over holidays on public property, in fact I think some folks get downright stuffy and no fun about it and need to let up. But a courthouse is different.

What would a person think....who's family fled from a country where religious law mixed with government....and judicial and clerical corruption were common...what would they think seeing the ten commandments posted outside the courthouse where he/she was going?

Should we have a monument to Sharia? (nix that - the stroke rate in the US would skyrocket)....

I do have a problem...in my mind - don't ask me why....but of all the branches I hold the judiciary in the highest esteem. They should be free from corruption, secular, fair and to the law while maintaining humanity. Religion is controversial - the more specific the more controversial.

 

[Coyote]

...

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:

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.

Religion BECOMES totalitarian...when it's allowed to control politics.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

I do...because appearances matter, especially in a court of law. I don't have a problem with innocent stuff - like religious displays over holidays on public property, in fact I think some folks get downright stuffy and no fun about it and need to let up. But a courthouse is different.

What would a person think....who's family fled from a country where religious law mixed with government....and judicial and clerical corruption were common...what would they think seeing the ten commandments posted outside the courthouse where he/she was going?

Should we have a monument to Sharia? (nix that - the stroke rate in the US would skyrocket)....

I do have a problem...in my mind - don't ask me why....but of all the branches I hold the judiciary in the highest esteem. They should be free from corruption, secular, fair and to the law while maintaining humanity. Religion is controversial - the more specific the more controversial.

again, if he's NOT using it in his rulings, I don't see the problem.

He brings up "the Lord sayeth", or Thou shalt Honor thy mother and father"...

get rid of him.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Just had to post this thread title again

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

 

[Coyote]

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.

I do...because appearances matter, especially in a court of law. I don't have a problem with innocent stuff - like religious displays over holidays on public property, in fact I think some folks get downright stuffy and no fun about it and need to let up. But a courthouse is different.

What would a person think....who's family fled from a country where religious law mixed with government....and judicial and clerical corruption were common...what would they think seeing the ten commandments posted outside the courthouse where he/she was going?

Should we have a monument to Sharia? (nix that - the stroke rate in the US would skyrocket)....

I do have a problem...in my mind - don't ask me why....but of all the branches I hold the judiciary in the highest esteem. They should be free from corruption, secular, fair and to the law while maintaining humanity. Religion is controversial - the more specific the more controversial.

again, if he's NOT using it in his rulings, I don't see the problem.

He brings up "the Lord sayeth", or Thou shalt Honor thy mother and father"...

get rid of him.

Can we add a monument to Sharia law then?

 

[BlackSand]

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.

The Supreme Court didn't take sides to start with ... They refused to hear the case.
You can make any assumptions you may wish as to why ... But the Justices and the Court don't comment on the reasons why they won't hear a case.
The Supreme Court should attempt to uphold the Constitution ... But they shouldn't attempt to legislate from the bench.

People getting all excited about what they would like to think is a "victory" ... Might want to actually wait until SCOTUS hears a case and makes a ruling ... Which isn't at all what happened with this particular case.

.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

I do...because appearances matter, especially in a court of law. I don't have a problem with innocent stuff - like religious displays over holidays on public property, in fact I think some folks get downright stuffy and no fun about it and need to let up. But a courthouse is different.

What would a person think....who's family fled from a country where religious law mixed with government....and judicial and clerical corruption were common...what would they think seeing the ten commandments posted outside the courthouse where he/she was going?

Should we have a monument to Sharia? (nix that - the stroke rate in the US would skyrocket)....

I do have a problem...in my mind - don't ask me why....but of all the branches I hold the judiciary in the highest esteem. They should be free from corruption, secular, fair and to the law while maintaining humanity. Religion is controversial - the more specific the more controversial.

again, if he's NOT using it in his rulings, I don't see the problem.

He brings up "the Lord sayeth", or Thou shalt Honor thy mother and father"...

get rid of him.

Can we add a monument to Sharia law then?

if you like.

odds are, it wont last long, and not because of the government

 

[Coyote]

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.

I do...because appearances matter, especially in a court of law. I don't have a problem with innocent stuff - like religious displays over holidays on public property, in fact I think some folks get downright stuffy and no fun about it and need to let up. But a courthouse is different.

What would a person think....who's family fled from a country where religious law mixed with government....and judicial and clerical corruption were common...what would they think seeing the ten commandments posted outside the courthouse where he/she was going?

Should we have a monument to Sharia? (nix that - the stroke rate in the US would skyrocket)....

I do have a problem...in my mind - don't ask me why....but of all the branches I hold the judiciary in the highest esteem. They should be free from corruption, secular, fair and to the law while maintaining humanity. Religion is controversial - the more specific the more controversial.

again, if he's NOT using it in his rulings, I don't see the problem.

He brings up "the Lord sayeth", or Thou shalt Honor thy mother and father"...

get rid of him.

Can we add a monument to Sharia law then?

if you like.

odds are, it wont last long, and not because of the government

No...likely not...

Perhaps sweetie...we can agree to disagree?

 

[Lysistrata]

If the neutrality of public lands is not secured, they would be so full of symbols that there would not be space to walk through. There is so much private property, including a vast amount that is tax-exempt because it is owned by religious groups, that there is plenty of space to display religious messages for the public to see. Public buildings and lands are there for all to use, regardless of their beliefs, and many times people are compelled to come to public buildings to attend to legitimate business.
Frankly, I think that this movement by some religious groups to plaster these things all over public space is an arrogant movement to claim dominance, something that no one in the U.S. should ever do. There are many signs up outside houses of worship that proclaim the views of the congregation within, and they are welcome to it. No body is questioning that.
There have been too many cases of a religious group putting up their displays in public space, and then affirmatively trying to stop members of other religious groups from doing the same. This ain't America.

 

[Coyote]

If the neutrality of public lands is not secured, they would be so full of symbols that there would not be space to walk through. There is so much private property, including a vast amount that is tax-exempt because it is owned by religious groups, that there is plenty of space to display religious messages for the public to see. Public buildings and lands are there for all to use, regardless of their beliefs, and many times people are compelled to come to public buildings to attend to legitimate business.
Frankly, I think that this movement by some religious groups to plaster these things all over public space is an arrogant movement to claim dominance, something that no one in the U.S. should ever do. There are many signs up outside houses of worship that proclaim the views of the congregation within, and they are welcome to it. No body is questioning that.
There have been too many cases of a religious group putting up their displays in public space, and then affirmatively trying to stop members of other religious groups from doing the same. This ain't America.

I agree in general...but on the other side, there is an almost knee jerk reaction to ANYTHING Christian (specifically) on public property. Christian is signalled out I'm sure becuase it is our most major and pushiest faith, followed by the majority here...yet....what is the harm in allowing a nativity scene celebrating Christmas on public property? That's when I feel it goes to far and the spirit of the law is broken. Everyone needs to learn to GIVE a little...we need to be a little more charitable and a little less THREATENED by all our religions.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

I do...because appearances matter, especially in a court of law. I don't have a problem with innocent stuff - like religious displays over holidays on public property, in fact I think some folks get downright stuffy and no fun about it and need to let up. But a courthouse is different.

What would a person think....who's family fled from a country where religious law mixed with government....and judicial and clerical corruption were common...what would they think seeing the ten commandments posted outside the courthouse where he/she was going?

Should we have a monument to Sharia? (nix that - the stroke rate in the US would skyrocket)....

I do have a problem...in my mind - don't ask me why....but of all the branches I hold the judiciary in the highest esteem. They should be free from corruption, secular, fair and to the law while maintaining humanity. Religion is controversial - the more specific the more controversial.

If they couldn't handle the 10 commandments being in front of a court of law. They need to be deported ASAP.

They probably don't belong in America.


That's my opinion, and it ain't changing.

 

[Marion Morrison]

If the neutrality of public lands is not secured, they would be so full of symbols that there would not be space to walk through. There is so much private property, including a vast amount that is tax-exempt because it is owned by religious groups, that there is plenty of space to display religious messages for the public to see. Public buildings and lands are there for all to use, regardless of their beliefs, and many times people are compelled to come to public buildings to attend to legitimate business.
Frankly, I think that this movement by some religious groups to plaster these things all over public space is an arrogant movement to claim dominance, something that no one in the U.S. should ever do. There are many signs up outside houses of worship that proclaim the views of the congregation within, and they are welcome to it. No body is questioning that.
There have been too many cases of a religious group putting up their displays in public space, and then affirmatively trying to stop members of other religious groups from doing the same. This ain't America.

I'm guessing you love the Yuge Confederate flag display off of I-4, correct?

Tell ya wut. I do.

You're such a ******* dipshit, like it's some modern movement or something.

You ******* tard: That's how America came to be.

That's what the Founding Fathers based this country on.

I don't have much more to add, except you're a ******* tard.

 

[Marion Morrison]

...

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:

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.

Religion BECOMES totalitarian...when it's allowed to control politics.

Are you claiming US politics weren't built on God's word?

PS: The Klan pic is purty creepy. I see a target-rich environment.

I have pictures way older than that.

Matthew Brady, older than that. Yes, I have these things.

Nobody's wearing Klan crap, though.

 

[AsherN]

I didn't know we were built on the ten commandments?

Take a look at the walls in Congress and SCOTUS...

The 10 Commandments are there along with the Hamurabi Code and many other historic laws and law givers. In that context, it is not meant in a religious way. It apparently is here, according to the reaction to the ruling.

But which of the 8 different version do you use?

 

[Old Rocks]

I didn't know we were built on the ten commandments?

Take a look at the walls in Congress and SCOTUS...

That would require the libs to be able to read? Not to many of those coming out of public education of late.

Another fucked up lie by another lying ignorant 'Conservative'. It is the red states that have the lowest education levels.

Red America vs. Blue America: State Maps Illustrate the Difference

The Human Development Index
The first map is color-coded based on a meta-measure of a society called the “human development index.” This index was created by the Social Science Research Council as a composite measure of the health, education and income levels within each state—the higher the number (or darker-colored the state on the map), the more developed the state.

 

[Old Rocks]

...

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:

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.

Religion BECOMES totalitarian...when it's allowed to control politics.

Are you claiming US politics weren't built on God's word?

PS: The Klan pic is purty creepy. I see a target-rich environment.

I have pictures way older than that.

Matthew Brady, older than that. Yes, I have these things.

Nobody's wearing Klan crap, though.

Really? July 10, 2017.

KKK rally in Charlottesville outnumbered by counterprotesters - CNN

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I didn't know we were built on the ten commandments?

Take a look at the walls in Congress and SCOTUS...

That would require the libs to be able to read? Not to many of those coming out of public education of late.

Another fucked up lie by another lying ignorant 'Conservative'. It is the red states that have the lowest education levels.

Red America vs. Blue America: State Maps Illustrate the Difference

The Human Development Index
The first map is color-coded based on a meta-measure of a society called the “human development index.” This index was created by the Social Science Research Council as a composite measure of the health, education and income levels within each state—the higher the number (or darker-colored the state on the map), the more developed the state.

You leftists are not educated. You are indoctrinated.

 

[Old Rocks]

I didn't know we were built on the ten commandments?

Take a look at the walls in Congress and SCOTUS...

That would require the libs to be able to read? Not to many of those coming out of public education of late.

Another fucked up lie by another lying ignorant 'Conservative'. It is the red states that have the lowest education levels.

Red America vs. Blue America: State Maps Illustrate the Difference

The Human Development Index
The first map is color-coded based on a meta-measure of a society called the “human development index.” This index was created by the Social Science Research Council as a composite measure of the health, education and income levels within each state—the higher the number (or darker-colored the state on the map), the more developed the state.

You leftists are not educated. You are indoctrinated.

Ya, by God, indoctrinated with those leftist ideas called Calculus, Geology, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. LOL