Supreme Court Rules on Ten Commandments


Recommended Posts

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?

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 to try and please everybody... This is impossible.

586134552[/snapback]

Hate to tarnish that pretty little bit of proselytizing, but Dashel's right, the founders were deists. (For example, you can find the use of the deist terms "Nature's God," "Divine Providence," ect. in the Declaration of Independence.)

The phrase "under God" wasn't even in the Pledge until 1954, when the Knights of Columbus successfully lobbied for its inclusion. In fact, "United States of America" wasn't even in it until 1923. Here's what that line looked like originally:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Here, have some sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

586132347[/snapback]

Agreed. And if the country eventually reaches that "secular ideal" which is discussed so often, you don't think that there will be those offended because it appears that the government is endorsing Atheism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If somebody could figure out how to please all the citizens of its country, then we wouldn't have problems like this. The point of this whole ordeal is that some American's tolerance level is low. Someone will say this is an immature comment, I don't care. I think people today want to make this country suit them how they like it. People need to learn how to tolerate things that they don't like. Perhaps we should be spending more time fixing issues such as Iraq and other foreign conflicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. And if the country eventually reaches that "secular ideal" which is discussed so often, you don't think that there will be those offended because it appears that the government is endorsing Atheism?

586135180[/snapback]

Atheism cannot be defined as a lack of religion. Endorsing atheism would be if a sign was erected signifying that "THERE IS NO GOD."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism cannot be defined as a lack of religion. Endorsing atheism would be if a sign was erected signifying that "THERE IS NO GOD."

586135545[/snapback]

True, but there will be people that will be offended that the government is secular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but there will be people that will be offended that the government is secular.

586135581[/snapback]

Why would they be offended? A government that just does it's job without getting involved with personal matters such as religion is something that everyone would benefit from. I don't like feeling as if I'm a second-class citizen just because I don't subscribe to the preferred religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they be offended? A government that just does it's job without getting involved with personal matters such as religion is something that everyone would benefit from. I don't like feeling as if I'm a second-class citizen just because I don't subscribe to the preferred religion.

586135910[/snapback]

But, just for the sake of argument, I don't like feeling like a second class citizen if I don't subscribe to a secular ideology. Keeping in mind that the laws of a nation reflect its ideals, sooner or later we're going to conflict.

Honestly, either way, someone's going to be offended. I don't think its correct to state that a completely secular government will solve the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they be offended? A government that just does it's job without getting involved with personal matters such as religion is something that everyone would benefit from. I don't like feeling as if I'm a second-class citizen just because I don't subscribe to the preferred religion.

586135910[/snapback]

I'm not implying that everyone will be offended; however, we all know that the entire nation will never be satisfied with how our government works, so it doesn't really matter what we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism cannot be defined as a lack of religion. Endorsing atheism would be if a sign was erected signifying that "THERE IS NO GOD."

586135545[/snapback]

THERE IS NO GOD! :D

Can't really comment on your country, but I'd say that it is very annoying to live in a country that has many of its laws based on religious writings, that were written 5000-2000 years ago. It's bad! Religion based laws are bad!

Edited by lnatan25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion or not the Ten Commandments kick ass.

Personally I don't care if a court can display them or not, in the end it really serves no porpose other than a decoration in the courtroom, however I think from a historic standpoint that we lost out a little bit. I am not against the 10 commandments or Hammarubi's code of laws or anything to those effects being displayed in courts of law, after all they can trace thier roots back to them.

But I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that the Pledge of Allegiance should have 'under God' in it, and i don't think that American money should say 'In God We Trust' on it, and i don't think that it's appropriate for serious religious articles to be placed on display on government property. The DIFFERENCE, though, is that the first two things are illegal, and the last one is not. (Well, it evidently is now, but it shouldn't be.)

The First Amendment says that Congress can not establish a law respecting an establishment of religion. Putting a display of the Ten Commandments in a court house does not in any way involve Congress or the passing of a law. Therefore, it should not be construed as illegal according to the First Amendment. Maybe illegal according to state or county law (although i doubt that), but not according to the nation's constitution.

Of course, it's the job of the Supreme Court to try to interpret what the writers of the Constitution really meant when they said 'Congress' and 'law', but i think they have stretched it beyond the limits of common sense. So, while i agree that it's inappropriate to display religious articles on government property, i also believe that it's not actually illegal according to American law. What they ought to do is actually make it illegal (with a new amendment or a new federal/state law or whatever). I doubt that'll ever happen, though, because for some reason there are people who think it's perfectly fine to discriminate against religions (unless it's Christianity).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.