Hurmoth Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 WASHINGTON ?The Supreme Court on Monday declared Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses unconstitutional.b>The court ruled that in McCreary County v. ACLU that the displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from endorsing or supporting one religion above others. The court also considered another Ten Commandments-related case, Van Orden v. Perry, involving a display on the grounds of a Texas courthouse. A ruling on that case was also expected Monday. News Source: FOXNews.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted June 27, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 27, 2005 i agree with this. there's nothing wrong with religion (within reason), but endorsing them in a secular environment is too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian.wallis Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 I'd agree that this is probably a good idea, but what will they do next? take "in God we trust" off American money? I don't know, it's a pretty controversial issue, on one hand you're creating a fairer freer society, but on the other you're destroying the principles your country was founded on in the first place. But hey, it's nothing to do with me anyway really, I'm British Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Van Orden v Perry, 10 Commandments display ruled constitutional McCreary County v. ACLU, 10 Commandments display ruled unconstitutional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefChickenWing Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 The court ruled that in McCreary County v. ACLU that the displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from endorsing or supporting one religion above others Yay!! This highlights my biggest issue with the Ten Commandments being placed outside our Court Houses. Too often it is the loudest voice in the room, screaming about how they hate religion and it shouldnt be forced upon us blah blah blah, but that wasnt the reason behind my disagreement with the Ten Commandments issue. It made a very clear statement of how our Courts viewed Religion, and was (even if unintentional) a clear endoresment for ONE religion above the others. And the "in God We Trust" thing.....bah. This Country, while founded and built by God fearing citizens, was not meant to be a endorsement for God, nor religion in general (and ESPECIALLY) not ONE religion amongst the group. The basic symbology used in our currency, and many of its courts to this day, is just that, symbolic. It has NEVER been meant for religion, or ONE PERSONS (or Group of Peoples)religion, to become endores'd or "put above others" in this role. For those screaming how it is part of our "heritage" and history, I would ask you to look a bit closer, as the basic principle of being able to worship FREELY, and the simple fact that this country was built by a large number of immigrants and people with vastly difffering backgrounds, as well as religions. I dont hate religion, I just dont want my government endorsing ONE specific religion, which is what this looked like (intentional or not, it does not matter), and along those lines, our officials have to realise that NO MATTER WHAT thier personal beliefs, and many of thier constituants, that symbol, or act of showing support for one above others, is unconstitutional, and simply bad judgement and poor taste. Yay!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdb815 Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Wow, the Supreme Court actually did something right for a change. Too bad some of thier other rulings here lately have been a little on the fascist side. :hmmm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimius Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 I disagreed with Judge Roy Moore's actions in the Alabama case, but that was because what he did was blatantly illegal. However, I don't see how arguing over things such as this, and "in God we trust" etc, is really that big of a deal. The US isn't a theocracy, and that's apparent, so why squabble over the little things? Along the same lines, I highly doubt anyone's lives are going to be majorly affected by what is printed on the US paper currency. I find it highly ironic that many of the same people who argue that the flag burning ammendment is making a big issue over a symbol have a problem with some words written on bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 (edited) One good ruling, two bad ones. Meh. I highly doubt anyone's lives are going to be majorly affected by what is printed on the US paper currency Exactly, but why does that gurantee the affirmative? Why can't we just live without it? Is faith in this country so weak that it needs constant reaffirmation? Plus, if you want to talk about founding remember that the founders during those turbulent times were more than just spectators in that little intellectual movement that was sweeping though Europe, especially France at the time. ;) Edited June 27, 2005 by Dashel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.nudd Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Why are people against the government endorsing a certain religion? Just because the government is one relgion, doesn't mean that the citizens of said country can't worship in another religion. As long as they don't force a religion on an unwilling person, i don't care what relgion the government endorses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerichohol Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Why are people against the government endorsing a certain religion? Just because the government is one relgion, doesn't mean that the citizens of said country can't worship in another religion. As long as they don't force a religion on an unwilling person, i don't care what relgion the government endorses. 586129179[/snapback] Well they shouldn't endorse any religion There are many people with different religions and some who do not even have a religion, I thought this was the reason there was a separation of church and state. I'm glad at least here in the UK, they don't do this sort of thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbluepride35 Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Why are people against the government endorsing a certain religion? Just because the government is one relgion, doesn't mean that the citizens of said country can't worship in another religion. As long as they don't force a religion on an unwilling person, i don't care what relgion the government endorses. 586129179[/snapback] My history on the topic may be a little hazy but wasn't it the case that European kings for centuries were said to rule by divine right? I think it originated in an attempt to prevent someone becoming tyrannical with such a claim. I may be COMPLETELY off and if so and someone knows the proper explanaiton please explain. It made a very clear statement of how our Courts viewed Religion, and was (even if unintentional) a clear endoresment for ONE religion above the others. Technically more than one religion. Judaism and Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.nudd Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Technically more than one religion. Judaism and Christianity. Yep As long as a the government isn't tyrannical, then it shoudln't matter what religion they endorse/talk about. I woudln't mind if a Qur'ran (sorry if i offended anyone with my spelling) was on a pedastal in a courthouse, or if a Buddhist or Hindu artifact/item. Our country is known as a melting pot of all cultures, and i woudln't mind if our governemnt endorsed one or many religions. Even if they did endorse a religion, they're not saying it's the best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 (N) I see this as more of an attack on Christianity than upholding the Constitution... Our society of 'religious tolerance' has become intolerant to religion. ----- Holy Moses By George Neumayr 6/28/2005 12:09:57 AM Perhaps nothing illustrates this era of judicial lawlessness better than the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the Ten Commandments, unless they are somehow aesthetically muted and secularized, be chiseled off courthouses across the country. Lawless judges cannot abide the sight of fixed laws adorning courts. Imagine if the representatives of the states at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 had a chance to review David Souter's secularized understanding of the First Amendment before deciding whether or not to ratify the Constitution. Would any of the states have ratified it? Would they have agreed to a constitution that gave federal judges the power to confiscate their public displays of the Ten Commandments? No, not a single state would have ratified a constitution that gave the federal government the power to establish a de facto secular, lowest-common-denominator national religion that could swoop down and squash their local religious expressions. The whole purpose of the First Amendment was to create a wall not between the state and religion but between the federal government and state religious activity. A historical fact almost no one ever mentions, which exposes Souter's understanding of the First Amendment as baldly unconstitutional, is that several states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire -- still had their own religions after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. And "in most of the other states," as author M. Stanton Evans wrote in the Washington Times in 1995, "there remained a network of religious requirements for public office -- typically, that one be a professing Christian of orthodox persuasion. Such requirements existed in New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia and the Carolinas. For example, the state of Vermont, one of the more liberal states of the era (admitted to the Union in 1791) required the following oath of office: 'I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration and own and profess the Protestant religion.'" So let's add this up: in the 18th century, the states enjoying the protections of the First Amendment could have their own state religions if they wanted, could institute religious tests for public office, and could pass laws against blasphemy and Sabbath-avoidance, among other offenses; in 2005, the states can't even put up the Ten Commandments in courthouses without aesthetic permission from the Supreme Court. (If states make sure to secularize their Moses and signal to viewers that they don't really believe in the Ten Commandments, then, maybe, you can hang them, the Supreme Court told the states.) Monday's ruling is yet another dismal reminder that the Supreme Court has written a new constitution for America without bothering to hold a Constitutional Convention. In fact, the Supreme Court should be renamed the "Ongoing Constitutional Convention." That's what it is at this point: nine judges determining from day to day the form of government under which over 280 million people will live. Liberals prefer this de facto Constitutional Convention to a real one since calling together the states to ratify a new secularist constitution would be a real hassle. They wouldn't dare be that direct and honest, for if they said to the American people, "The Founding Fathers' constitution is an outmoded theistic relic. Join us in forming a new constitution on secularist foundations," the people would never ratify it. So what do they do? They write a new constitution in David Souter's office and call it jurisprudence. Souter, who held that the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses could hurt someone's feelings (it is a constitutional no-no to make atheists feel like "outsiders," he says), made much of "neutrality" as a handy new principle. This is one of the grand-sounding conceits of secularism, and it is completely bogus. Just as the middle distance between truth and error is still error, so too the supposedly neutral and middle distance between religion and irreligion is still irreligion. There are plenty of irreligious displays in courthouses -- depictions of this or that feel-good figure from mythology. Has the "neutral" Supreme Court ever asked that those displays be dismantled? Has it ever said to flaky judges in California, "We find your exhibitions to be dangerous endorsements of paganism that could make Christians feel like outsiders"? Under the sham principle of neutrality, the lowest common denominator of the culture gets to define the public square while the very theism that informed the country's founding is declared criminal. The lawless judges of the Supreme Court can't bear any laws above them, whether they come from Madison or Moses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimius Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Yeah. It really ends up at the question of ultimate authority. Its a question that, depending on how you answer, will determine where you stand. As for the US, the situation has shifted from the answer being "God" to "Man". History affirms this, as does the Supreme Court ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted June 28, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 28, 2005 (N) I see this as more of an attack on Christianity than upholding the Constitution...Our society of 'religious tolerance' has become intolerant to religion. it would be the same if it was buddhism, shintoism, hindu, islam, etc. christianity isn't unique, except for the fact that it's the dominant ideology here. but you can't satisfy everyone. if they said it was acceptable, some people would say it was endorsing a particular religion. now that it was deemed unacceptable, some people are saying it's an attack on christianity. no one wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefChickenWing Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 (edited) rumbleph1sh Posted Today, 04:40 AM thumbs_down.gif I see this as more of an attack on Christianity than upholding the Constitution... Our society of 'religious tolerance' has become intolerant to religion. I see it as protection from the concept that since our government ENDORSES one specific religion, it will not only gain dominance, but MORE influence, in the way our government is managed. I understand where Rumble is coming from, in concept, but do not agree with it, as I still see humans, and our government as fallible agents in governance. This said, history has REPEATEDLY shown that the influence of Religion on government is NOT for the better, and over time, starts to benefit only those who follow its scriptures. This is NOT a predetermined idea/concept/event, but just something that has happened repeatedly in the history of the world, and to ignore that, and just openly accept it as "good for Christianity, good for everyone" is misguided, and sad. We are NOT totally ruled by the majority (thankfully), and this concept is very necessary, as it ballances our whole system. Religion has done great things for peoplle, but along those same lines, its been used to do great evil as well. Ignoring this doesnt make us any better at it, our pratcies and concepts. It just makes us more susceptible to repeating the same mistakes. Aside from that, I fully support the seperation of church and state, and this(a ruling in favor of the 10 commandments) would be a decisive step in making that concept null. Edited June 28, 2005 by ChiefChickenWing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 ..and just like we all learned from watching War Games dreamz, its better to just not play. And please, this is exactly what our founders were afraid of. Government to them MUST remain secular, regardless of their own spiritual motivation. Ultimate authority has always been in the hand of man, not gods in this great nation. It is un-American and blatantly ignorant to suggest otherwise. Plus, it seems to me that only those weak in their faith would see this as an attack upon their conception of god. j.nudd, I'll overlook your comment due to your youth and naivet?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3beanlimit Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Plus, it seems to me that only those weak in their faith would see this as an attack upon their conception of god. Hummm.... Good point!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.nudd Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 ..and just like we all learned from watching War Games dreamz, its better to just not play.And please, this is exactly what our founders were afraid of. Government to them MUST remain secular, regardless of their own spiritual motivation. Ultimate authority has always been in the hand of man, not gods in this great nation. It is un-American and blatantly ignorant to suggest otherwise. Plus, it seems to me that only those weak in their faith would see this as an attack upon their conception of god. j.nudd, I'll overlook your comment due to your youth and naivet?. 586133698[/snapback] What would you like to say about my comment, I'd like to hear. I'm by no means encouraging that the United States government become a theocracy. We're continuing to stamp out any sort of religious reference in any sort of governemtnally led system. There are people that want to remove "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Do you want to remove that because there is a reference to religion? "Already, steps are being taken toward removing religious references from new construction of public property. The newest monument on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., is dedicated to World War II. On it is a partial quote from a speech by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The phrase near the end of the speech, where Roosevelt says "So help us God," is omitted from the engraving. Source This country was founded by devout Christians and obviously will have Christian references in its roots. I'm not advocating a theocracy, as I said before. My point is we're removing things from our history totry> and please everybody... This is impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison H. Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 According to whichever amendment or part of the constitution arent they NOT allowed to have the bit on the bill, the bit in the pledge, not allowed to have christmas, chanukah and others (These are national holidays but what about other religions?). So many things are done that are not allowed to be by the constitution.. Though I doubt any of it will ever change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I'm sorry the perversion you call education has led you to the belief that the founders were 'devout' Christians. Let me be the first to pop that little ****ing bubble and send you hurtling back to the truth, they were deists. I take it you aren't familiar with the Jeffersonian Bible either. Kind of hard to be a devout Christian if you don't believe Jesus is the son of god. I can only hope you pickup any of Jefferson's, Franklin's, or especially Paine's (the true father of the American Revolution) writings and actually read it before you come here so sure in your misguided beliefs. That and you fundamentally misjudge the climate of the times and the reasons that revolution and not reform were a necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 iotc247, I would take exception to the part about holidays as being a violation. You bring up a good point though but I believe there is plenty of room for compromise on that matter specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.nudd Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 So you think the government should abolish any sort of religious references on government property? President Bush has openly said he's Christian, do we remove him from office because he is a religious reference in the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Such a feeble attempt to misdirect from your previous statements. I would suggest being more earnest until your understanding of the concepts involved has matured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R-Flex Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 President Bush has openly said he's Christian, do we remove him from office because he is a religious reference in the government? 586134686[/snapback] No, that's why it's a democracy: He will get voted out if his Christian beliefs override presidential duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts