Theocracy, etc.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 9/8/2003, 1:22 pm

Yeah, I got that, only he's not making sense.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/8/2003, 2:40 pm

One-Eye wrote:Yeah, I got that, only he's not making sense.

It is interesting that you said that, because I'm trying to mimic you.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 9/8/2003, 2:44 pm

Actually, I live in America, and as it is a democracy I do have a right to express my opinions about what goes on in our government, and I have a right to be heard. What goes on in another country is none of my business. So what you said makes no sense.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/8/2003, 2:50 pm

One-Eye wrote:Actually, I live in America, and as it is a democracy I do have a right to express my opinions about what goes on in our government, and I have a right to be heard. What goes on in another country is none of my business. So what you said makes no sense.

Do you live in Alabama? I guarantee that several government buildings in Iraq have Muslim heritage. Does that mean that everything religion based should be destroyed in order to liberate the people? No. The US law was written based on British law which is heavily Christian inspired. To have a dinky little monument to show heritage is hardly anything more than a statue. I wouldn't care if the statue was Buddhist, Jewish, or otherwise. What's wrong with it? It is in fact more racist to have it removed than to keep it there. It is also a huge waste of time and energy. Like it or not, our law is based on the Bible and the 10 commandments.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 9/8/2003, 3:00 pm

Hmmm, now it just sounds to me like you're uninformed. Read up more on the issue, and you'll learn that the judge put the monument there late at night without consulting any of his colleagues, went against all of his fellow state judges, who voted unanimously for its removal, refused to follow the order of the Supreme Court to take it down, and finally had to be suspended from his office for breaking the law.

As for "dinky little monument", this thing is MAMMOTH. The Supreme Court said he could move it to his chambers or to his office and display it there (which are on the 3rd floor), but it is too heavy for the elevator.

And "heritage"? The Constitution mentions religion twice - once to say it has to stay out of state affairs, and again to say that there can't be a religious test given to people before they're allowed to hold office. God - christian or otherwise - is never mentioned. Some of the founding fathers were Christian, but many were Deists, and at least one was an atheist. Our laws match the 10 commandments in all of three ways (don't steal, don't kill, don't bear false witness), and that is all. That our country is a "Christian nation" based on "Christian principles" is fiction created by political parties to gain favor. Nothing else.

Tell me how it's "racist" to want a neutral government?

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/8/2003, 3:03 pm

mammoth?

<img src="http://www.freedomforum.org/graphics/2001/08/photos/tencommandments.al.8-1-01.jpg">

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/8/2003, 3:05 pm

One-Eye wrote:That our country is a "Christian nation" based on "Christian principles" is fiction created by political parties to gain favor. Nothing else.

Prove it.

True or false: American Law is based on British Law.
True or false: British Law is based on Christianity.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/8/2003, 3:07 pm

One-Eye wrote:Hmmm, now it just sounds to me like you're uninformed. Read up more on the issue, and you'll learn that the judge put the monument there late at night without consulting any of his colleagues, went against all of his fellow state judges, who voted unanimously for its removal, refused to follow the order of the Supreme Court to take it down, and finally had to be suspended from his office for breaking the law.

I'm very informed. I followed the whole mess. I really don't care if it stays or go. I just don't care for the reverse racism that has been going on lately by liberals like you against Christians. Its his court house. Who cares what he does with it.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 9/8/2003, 4:02 pm

Oh please. I'm against Christians? No, I'm for free practice of religion, but the government - which is representative of everyone - needs to remain neutral. It's monuments now - if they win that battle, what's next? The last thing we need right now is a legal precedent for mixing church and state.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 9/8/2003, 4:08 pm

Corey wrote:
One-Eye wrote:That our country is a "Christian nation" based on "Christian principles" is fiction created by political parties to gain favor. Nothing else.

Prove it.

True or false: American Law is based on British Law.
True or false: British Law is based on Christianity.

I don't think those statements can be proven or disproven, since they're so vague. However, Christian law and American civil law rarely intersect - and when they do it's on matters of ethics (killing, stealing), not religion (sabbath days, graven images, keeping kosher). The point is that many settlers came here to escape religious persecution brought about by their countries of origin - they knew what happened when you mix church and state. The Constitution specifically made any "state religion" illegal and prohibits the government from choosing sides on the issue. Whether the founding fathers saw fit to outlaw murder because they were Christians or because such behavior is deterrent to a cohesive and safe society is irrelevant. If we were a Christian nation, our Constitution would say so. It doesn't. So Christian monuments should not be in governmental buildings - they have no business there. On private property, yay, that's great, be religious. The government is shared and neutral ground.

doug · Post by **doug** » 9/8/2003, 5:17 pm

here's an angle on this story that hasn't been tried before:

the concept of legal law and the concept of moral law are closely tied together, right? i mean, what are the 10 commandments besides laws? i'm not sure if it's as much a symbol of religon as it is a symbol of law.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 9/8/2003, 5:26 pm

That's an interesting point. However, the 10 commandments are not America's law. It'd be like posting the Code of Justinian - complete with death penalties of stoning and offenses like treason against the emporer - in our modern courthouses. Sure, they're laws. But they're not our laws, so they've got no business being in our courthouses. If we want a monument dedicated to law, we should engrave the Constitution in stone.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/8/2003, 6:40 pm

The point is that the monument does nothing to affect law. It is merely eye candy. You can't even read it if you don't go out of your way to walk up to it. Everything offends somebody. So, in your own words, "Where does it stop?" Pillars look like giant dicks to me so they should rip every single one out. Here's why I say it is reverse racism. It doesn't affect you in the least bit, but it means a lot to the judge who resides there yet you want it gone. As long as you aren't paying for it, it doesn't change your life in the slightest. Another problem I have is that if someone put up a stone with some Buddhist proverb written on it, noone would say a damn thing. It's just words carved in stone. Because it is the 10 commandments, everyone is like "Oh my GOD, religion!!!" And yes, that was a play on words.

One last point. I'm sure none of the hippies that complain about crap like this (In God We Trust on money and 10 commandments at public buildings, you know, stuff that doesn't affect them anywas) have no problem taking Christmas day off from work and school. Where's the bitching then? Nowhere, because they benefit from religion in that case. Damn hypocrits.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 9/8/2003, 10:57 pm

i think what the person above me said is despicable. Religion and Law are too very difficult subjects, that under no circumstance should be anywhere near each other. everyone has the right to a fair trial, and how do you think it would make a muslim/non christian defendant/accused feel if they`re walking up the steps to their day in court and see the ten commandments on a big bloody statue. its unfair, and its down right biased. if your gonna put up a statue about christianity, should there not also be a buddha, the star of david, and something from the koran? no. because there should NOT be any religious statements in or outside a court house!, religion and spirituality is a very personal issue, and it shouldnt be displayed anywhere but in your home, or in you church/synagouge/temple. its easy enough to follow. and as for the part about christmas day, do YOU spend all of christmas day in church buddy? doubt it. and BTW, there aint nothin`wrong with hippies, least they`re not war-mongerers like your scripture quoting president...

Narbus · Post by **Narbus** » 9/8/2003, 11:02 pm

A few points:
"American law is based on X, so we should do Y."
Obvious rebuttal: Modern cars are "based" on the steam engine. So we should clearly have to get out of our cars and turn a crank on our engines to make them run.
Things change. Deal with it. Look to the past for guidance when appropriate, but realize that your current situtation is unique and requires a unique response.

"It doesn't affect you, so shut up."
Actually it does. In the US judicial system, the ruling of a judge typically goes beyond the single courtroom s/he is in. Lawyers and Judges in other courts, even in other states will often refer to similar cases in order to learn how the law was interpreted. This is to avoid the issue of the same law being applied in different manners, which would be bad. The law should be applied equally, especially Constitutional Law, since the whole of government is based off Constitutional Law. So if, in this case, the man is allowed to set up a religious display, which, in this case, did amount to an agent of the government endorsing a particular religion, which is illegal and rather immoral, then that ruling could be applied to other cases in other states, including my own, and I'd have to deal with it.

"the concept of legal law and the concept of moral law are closely tied together, right? i mean, what are the 10 commandments besides laws? i'm not sure if it's as much a symbol of religon as it is a symbol of law"
Actually, this point has been raised, and the Supreme Court has deemed it "Okay," so long as the 10 Commandments ARE in fact part of a secular display of legal codification. While I am having some issues finding the article I read, I do recall an instance where a display contained all kinds of legal codes, from Hammurabi to the 10 Commandments to the Magna Carta, to the US Constitution, etc and so forth. Since the display was meant to show how the law evolved over time with certain key highlights, it was a secular display, and was allowed. Judge Moore however, made it rather clear several times that he felt the 10 Commandments held a special place because of the religious background, because he felt God inspired them and they were true.
As I'm agnostic, I would feel very uncomfortable going into court with those tablets in front and that man in charge, yes.

I AM ME · Post by **I AM ME** » 9/8/2003, 11:20 pm

i'm not trying to stir up crap but British Law is actually very heavily influenced by The laws set forth by Hannibal of Babylon and Roman Law

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/9/2003, 6:21 am

dazed_by_lies wrote:and as for the part about christmas day, do YOU spend all of christmas day in church buddy?

I go to midnight mass if you must know and even if I didn't at least I wouldn't be a hypocrit for saying we should rip out Christian statues AND take Christmas day off from work and school. Do you work on Christmas day or are you happily opening gifts?

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 9/9/2003, 6:24 am

Another point for you that defended removing smoking from private businesses and also defend the removal of religion from public buildings. Shouldn't we then, in turn, remove religion from private businesses also? I mean, it would be awful if I sat down at a restaurant and have to stare at a cross while I'm trying to eat.

Narbus · Post by **Narbus** » 9/9/2003, 7:43 am

Corey wrote:I go to midnight mass if you must know and even if I didn't at least I wouldn't be a hypocrit for saying we should rip out Christian statues AND take Christmas day off from work and school. Do you work on Christmas day or are you happily opening gifts?

About this: This occured so long ago that it's now simply too much a pain in the ass to change. If someone did invent cigarettes today and tried to get them past the FDA, there have absolutely no chance. Asprin (actual asprin) is the same. There's a litany of unpleasant side effects that go with it, but so many people are used to it that it just hangs around. We did learn something from prohibition.
As it stands, it's just been done for so long that the effort that would go into actually changing it is pretty much a waste. That and the number of people who celebrate it (including atheists/agnostics who just celebrate it as a time of togetherness and such) asking for that day off would leave around 1% of the workforce actually at work, and it wouldn't be worth the effort to open.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 9/9/2003, 10:45 am

Corey wrote:mammoth?

<img src="http://www.freedomforum.org/graphics/2001/08/photos/tencommandments.al.8-1-01.jpg">

dude, that's 2 and a 1/2 tons! i'd say that's pretty big.

ClumsyMonkey.net

ClumsyMonkey.net

Theocracy, etc.