Why are the 10 commandments so bad to display?

[fuzzykitten99]

This is being taken down after being up after nearly 50 years. I gotta know, how does this force you to think a certain way? How does this promote religion? Do these people know that our laws are BASED on the 10 commandments? Why is it so bad to "Honor thy father and they mother"? Why is it a bad thing to "...not steal"? Should we promote committing murder? Just because the origin of the 10 commandments is Christian, does not make it a bad thing.

If someone wanted to put a verse from the Qu'ran, would these people object? Only if they want to be called racist.

Whole story:
---------------
10 Commandments Coming Down In Duluth

A federal judge appears to have had the final word in the removal of a Ten Commandment monument outside City Hall.
U.S. District Chief Judge James Rosenbaum on Thursday approved a lawsuit settlement that requires the city to remove the 7-foot-tall monument.

Rosenbaum also denied a motion to block the settlement by a group of monument supporters -- the same group that Duluth leaders said on Thursday failed to gather enough valid signatures to put the issue up to a citywide referendum.

"The monument must go," said Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, who along with 10 Duluth residents filed the federal lawsuit in February saying the monument violates the Constitution's separation of religion and government.

"This might actually, really and truly be over," Samuelson said.

The settlement calls for the city to sell the monument to a nongovernment entity by Aug. 15. The city also agreed not to erect another monument anywhere on city property or take back the original monument.

The city agreed that if it ever went back on its word, it would pay unspecified damages, attorneys fees and court costs, said Duluth City Attorney Bryan Brown.

Also, if a referendum was passed and a monument was erected, the city would be in contempt of federal court, he said.

Rosenbaum said lawsuit settlements cannot be the subject of referendums, Brown said.

Monument supporters hit another snag when the city clerk's office said on Thursday that of 3,927 signatures turned in as of May 3, only 2,502 were acceptable, according to a memo to the City Council.

The group needed 2,944 valid signatures to put it on the November 2005 city election ballot and 5,889 for a special election. More than 1,400 signatures were disqualified because the people were not registered to vote or didn't live in Duluth or for other reasons.

The Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie 79 gave the monument to the city in October 1957. The settlement calls for the monument to be housed out of the public's view until a buyer can be found.

Several local churches have offered to prominently display the monument on their front lawns. The city first must undergo a bidding process.


click for link to story

 

[dmp]

Liberals tend to be afraid of God.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by fuzzykitten99
This is being taken down after being up after nearly 50 years. I gotta know, how does this force you to think a certain way? How does this promote religion? Do these people know that our laws are BASED on the 10 commandments? Why is it so bad to "Honor thy father and they mother"? Why is it a bad thing to "...not steal"? Should we promote committing murder? Just because the origin of the 10 commandments is Christian, does not make it a bad thing.

If someone wanted to put a verse from the Qu'ran, would these people object? Only if they want to be called racist.

The Ten Commandments are not themselves bad, and the prohibitions themselves for the most part pre-date the origination of the Commandments (the Jews not being the first civilization to prohibit murder and theft). It is their display which is forbidden.

Our laws are historically and culturally based on a number of sources, and the government is allowed to display the Ten Commandments within a larger display paying homage to the sources of our law. The government cannot display the Ten Commandments alone because that would indicate government support/ endorsement for a religion, which is forbidden (as is government support for any religion)

It is the same as the City of Duluth placing a large monument to the Koran in front of the Courthouse. The question isn't whether "these people" would object to such a display (I think they clearly would), but how would you feel about such a display? If this would bother you, then that should help you understand why this exhibiting of the Ten Commandments is forbidden.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by -=d=-
Liberals tend to be afraid of God.

is that a generalization?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
Our laws are historically and culturally based on a number of sources, and the government is allowed to display the Ten Commandments within a larger display paying homage to the sources of our law. The government cannot display the Ten Commandments alone because that would indicate government support/ endorsement for a religion, which is forbidden (as is government support for any religion)

Actually, you contradicted yourself. One written Ammendment will let no law for or against religion to be passed and another will not let the government show favoritism of one. Given the documents origins and wordings, it is clear that this is the letter of the law with Christianity as the spirit of the law.

The citizens can endorse whatever they want wherever they want. The government cannot stamp approval on it. A koran on a wall, or the 10 Commandments are equal in a courtroom or anywhere else with one exception.

-Which one founded our nation?


That would mean you could display either unrestricted, but only one is even reasonable while the other would look rather stupid.

It is the same as the City of Duluth placing a large monument to the Koran in front of the Courthouse. The question isn't whether "these people" would object to such a display (I think they clearly would), but how would you feel about such a display? If this would bother you, then that should help you understand why this exhibiting of the Ten Commandments is forbidden.

That is irrelevant and illegal. You have a freedom OF religion, not FROM religion.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by -=d=-
Liberals tend to be afraid of God.

Liberals tend to be afraid of the Christian God.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Liberals tend to be afraid of the Christian God.

another generalization?

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Liberals tend to be afraid of the Christian God.

Semantics.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Reilly
The government cannot display the Ten Commandments alone because that would indicate government support/ endorsement for a religion, which is forbidden (as is government support for any religion)

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

How does displaying the 10 Commandments constitute making a law that establishes a religion? And which religion is it?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally possted by DKSuddeth
another generalization?

Generalizing is the mother of wisdom.

Originally posted by -=d=-
Semantics.

No, not at all. It is an important distinction. Liberals support the display of all things judaic, islamic, buddhist, et cetera. It's Christianity liberals have a problem with.

 

[TN_Independent]

Originally posted by Zhukov
How does displaying the 10 Commandments constitute making a law that establishes a religion? And which religion is it?

I want to go on record as being in favor of the posting of the Ten Commandments!

But in answer to your question, the answer is that it doesn't. But the law has been interpreted otherwise by the courts.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1

''Probably,'' Story also wrote, ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.'' The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment.

This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.'' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position.

 

[Reilly]

I have to go meet someone for lunch, so I won't be able to engage in a debate concerning your fucked up views on the Constitution. However, before I go...

Originally posted by NewGuy
Actually, you contradicted yourself. One written Ammendment will let no law for or against religion to be passed and another will not let the government show favoritism of one. Given the documents origins and wordings, it is clear that this is the letter of the law with Christianity as the spirit of the law.

1. Where is the contradiction in what I said?
2. It is the same amendment you are talking about (1st Amend.). There is only the one.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I know you think that the 14th amendment isl unconstitutional, but for the rest of us, the First Amend. applies to State and City governments by virtue of the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment.

I thought you were a strict Constitutionalist who abhored any Constitutional interpretation, including reference to outside sources. As such, I wouldn't think the spirit of the law would be a concern of yours.

Originally posted by NewGuy

The citizens can endorse whatever they want wherever they want. The government cannot stamp approval on it. A koran on a wall, or the 10 Commandments are equal in a courtroom or anywhere else with one exception.

True.

Originally posted by NewGuy

-Which one founded our nation?

I wasn't aware that Christianity or Islam founded our country.
Just giving you a hard time, I know what you meant.

Originally posted by NewGuy

That would mean you could display either unrestricted, but only one is even reasonable while the other would look rather stupid.

Actually, completely ass-backwards wrong. You can't display either on state property, because the state would have to give you permission to do so, and in doing so, they would be endorsing religion (forbidden in just about any form.) I know you disagree with this, but thus is the world.

Originally posted by NewGuy

That is irrelevant and illegal. You have a freedom OF religion, not FROM religion.

True. But you also have freedom from government endorsement of religion.

Gotta trot. Have a nice day guys (and ladies).

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by Zhukov
No, not at all. It is an important distinction. Liberals support the display of all things judaic, islamic, buddhist, et cetera. It's Christianity liberals have a problem with.

Hmmm...that seems a valid point - what's the term for a Racist, only one who isn't racist, but only hates based on Religion?

hmm..

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Zhukov
How does displaying the 10 Commandments constitute making a law that establishes a religion? And which religion is it?

One last one. The courts have for some time construed "make no law" to include just about any government action. Thus, it is equally impermissible for the county sheriff to deny you a permit to a public rally on the basis of your speech as it is for the legislature to pass a law setting up a standard that would deny you to hold a public rally on the basis of your speech.

It is a little more complicated than this, but I don't have the time right now.

Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[DKSuddeth]

well, since this is degenerating into a liberal bashing thread, i'll leave you guys to patting each other on the back about it.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

the whole thing with this is that someone wanted their 15 minutes of fame.

why all of a sudden, are the liberals NOW freaking out about the monument? The monument had been up since 1957, and they are just NOW getting to it? AS far as I can tell, it has never hurt anyone-other than some people's egos. No one was FORCED to become Christianjust by reading it. Ok, fine you don't want to believe in GOd, that's your business, but don't assume that EVERYONE thinks like you. Hell, my co-worker/best friend is an Athiest. She couldn't care less about religeous monuments, because she believes what she wants, and knows that others out there are different, and this country was founded by people of Judeo-Christian faith. No skin off her back, as long as the government doesn't come out saying that Christianity is the Official Religion of the U.S. and that everyone should practice it, there is no problem. She tells me that she has bigger things to worry about than something as petty as something like this.

 

[007]

The removals of monuments of the Ten Commandments is just the beginning of the liberal left and the ACLU's push to drive Christianity out of America. After they've had all such monuments removed, they will press on with that agenda. The next thing will be, no will have to put their hand on a Bible in court, and have to swear to tell the truth "so help them God". That ritual will disappear. Next they will push to have "In God We Trust" stricken from all our Currency, and they won't be stopping there.

The liberal left and ACLU want nothing more than to DISMANTLE America as we know it. They won't be happy until it looks a lot like the old USSR.

 

[rspencer]

Wow - that is pretty scary. Lets kill them.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
1. Where is the contradiction in what I said?

the government is allowed to display the Ten Commandments ........ The government cannot display the Ten Commandments

The Constitution is not regulating this conditionally.

2. It is the same amendment you are talking about (1st Amend.). There is only the one.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This puts the favoritism of NO RELIGION in the stance of being illegal. -Which was my point. I know you cannot take a document in context and like to think only one line pertains to only one issue, but that is not the case.

I know you think that the 14th amendment isl unconstitutional, but for the rest of us, the First Amend. applies to State and City governments by virtue of the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment.

I don't care what you think, or what everyone else thinks. Plain and simple, if an Amendment goes against the original 10, by Constiutional mandate and decreee, it is unconstitutional.

When are you going to realize that?

I thought you were a strict Constitutionalist who abhored any Constitutional interpretation, including reference to outside sources. As such, I wouldn't think the spirit of the law would be a concern of yours.

It is necessary for understanding the background. As far as legallity, it is irrelevant.

You can't display either on state property, because the state would have to give you permission to do so, and in doing so, they would be endorsing religion (forbidden in just about any form.) I know you disagree with this, but thus is the world.

Just because it is the world doesn't make it right, or legal.

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Haven't you learned you don't want to get into this with me yet?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
well, since this is degenerating into a liberal bashing thread, i'll leave you guys to patting each other on the back about it.

Ummm.....I don't see that.