Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 210
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Why do you keep trying to go down this road. The very definiion of the 10 coms is that they were handed down by the hand of gawd to that Moses guy. That would be religion.
    Da I responded to this point just few posts ago the starts off with "Two points:"

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I believe that's what the Supreme Court stated and pointedly said must be secular.
    This is not true...Again answered a few posts back and a few forward in post #84. Historically, the Supreme court has not been consistant with it rulings on things of this nature. In the last two rulings they have been.

    I think it an interesting point that it took 173 years before anyone had an issue with anything even similiar to this. Any only in the last 50 years or so have there been court case laws on these types of topics. And these rulings have been consistant in only the fact that they have not been consistant.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/28/2005 at 12:38 PM.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Your definition of endorsement is much different than mine. To me, to endorse something is active, I don't believe that just because something exists in a given location that it is necessarily endorsed.
    Obviously, placing a display of the ten commandments in a court building is "something active"... it did not just happen to materialize there, did it?
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Given what I preceive as your definition, would not the Swiss flag be an endorsement of Christian religion by the Swiss Government?
    Indeed the Swiss flag is a bit of a problem, and of course it goes back to the "Christian" cross. However, I guess it is fair to say that in the course of the centuries, the Swiss flag has become a symbol of Switzerland, and not of Christianity any more. After all, a cross can symbolize many things, not just Christianity.

    I guess it is also less of a problem because fundamentalist Christians don't play any role whatsoever in Switzerland, so it is not an issue for anybody. Nobody would be naive enough to talk about going on a "crusade" unlike some US politicians.

    However, it actually can be an issue for the Red Cross, whose flag/symbol is simply the inversion of the Swiss flag. That is why there is also the Red Half-Moon (and possibly other symbols).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Obviously, placing a display of the ten commandments in a court building is "something active"... it did not just happen to materialize there, did it?
    Here we disagree. Certainly it did not instantaneously materialize but I still do not see it's existence as an endorsement. In order for me to make that connection as an endorsement, it would have to be referred to as having direct impact on the proceedings

    Indeed the Swiss flag is a bit of a problem, and of course it goes back to the "Christian" cross. However, I guess it is fair to say that in the course of the centuries, the Swiss flag has become a symbol of Switzerland, and not of Christianity any more. After all, a cross can symbolize many things, not just Christianity.
    Can the same not be said of the 10 commandments ? I'm agnostic and how I perceive the 10 commandments is similar to how you state you see the Swiss flag. To me, they represent a basic right v wrong foundation, regardless of the religious origin.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    With all due respect, this is not true at all. I guess many people believe this, but when you actually read the ten commandments and think about it for a while, you will realize that they either don't apply, or that they are commonplaces:
    Here are some comments about that:

    If you want to be able to gaze up at all the "Thou Shalts" and "Thou Shalt Nots" with your neighbors, a five-justice majority said Monday, you must incorporate your religious symbol into a larger monument that incorporates secular messages as well. In other words, the court ruled, some God is constitutionally good; all God is constitutionally bad. So if I were you, I would buy stock in companies that chisel the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution into stone. Those kinds of tablets are going to be flying out of landscape places like iPods out of a WalMart now that officials know for sure they are the ticket to Commandment-ville.

    In Texas there was no such record that the Commandments had been placed at the State Capital for a purely religious purpose. Indeed, they had been there for decades before anyone had the idea that they might offend constitutional principles. Moreover, the tablet was part of a much larger display of similar symbols that included a replica of the Statute of Liberty, war veterans' monuments, and even a salute to the heroes of the Alamo (it being Texas and all). In that context, the Court's majority declared, whatever religious message the Ten Commandments conveyed was sufficiently neutralized by its surroundings to allow it to pass that elusive First Amendment test.

    The hinge between the two cases — the reason why one turned out one way and the other the other way — was Justice Steven G. Breyer, who was the only justice who was a part of both majority opinions. In the Kentucky case, he joined in the eloquent language of Justice David H. Souter, who wrote: "We are centuries away from the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre and the treatment of heretics in early Massachusetts, but the divisiveness of religion in current public life is inescapable. This is no time to deny the prudence of understanding the Establishment Clause to stay neutral on religious belief, which is reserved for the conscience of the individual."

    Justice Souter's religious "neutrality," of course, is Justice Antonin Scalia's religious "intolerance." The dissent in the Kentucky case — carried also by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy — chided the majority for tolerating, even encouraging, a sort of constitutional hostility toward precisely the sort of religious symbolism that has been around since (and before) the country's inception.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in704600.shtml

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I would be far more impressed if some quotes from Jesus like "Love your enemies" were placed in courtrooms (ok, maybe not courtrooms), at least those are not trivial, and some of them may even have had some influence on our society, though this seem far from certain to me.
    Even though personally totally agree with those statements from Jesus. The fact that they are from Jesus does refer to Christianity alone, even though as hofo_mofo pointed out others simply recognize he existed. The 10 commandments is representative of Jews, Christains, and Islam.....making viable to pass the 3 point 1st Ammendment test in various situations.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Can the same not be said of the 10 commandments ? I'm agnostic and how I perceive the 10 commandments is similar to how you state you see the Swiss flag. To me, they represent a basic right v wrong foundation, regardless of the religious origin.
    In the ten commandments god demands that everybody shall only have one god, THE god, himself, meaning the god of Jews, Christians, and possibly Muslims. So the ten commandments are clearly unconstitutional, are they not? The first commandment clearly violates the ... amendment (fill in the blank). So why place them in a courthouse? It does not make any sense, does it?

    Some commandments violate the constitutional rights, most commandments don't apply, some are just trivial commonplaces. Why show them?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    In the ten commandments god demands that everybody shall only have one god, THE god, meaning the god of Jews, Christians, and possibly Muslims. So the ten commandments are clearly unconstitutional, are they not? The first commandment clearly violates the ... amendment (fill in the blank). So why place them in a courthouse? It does not make any sense, does it?

    Some commandments violate the constitutional rights, most commandments don't apply, some are just trivial commonplaces. Why show them?
    Why not? I guess that's my point. I do not find them to be an endorsement and therefore have no problem with them being displayed.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Why not?
    Because some commandments violate the constitutional rights, most commandments don't apply, some are just trivial commonplaces.

    What would you say if somebody would want to place other religious texts which contradict the constitution in a court, something like "EVERYBODY has to believe in Waheguru, in him alone, and only in him" - oops, sorry, that is what the first commandment says, only in the name of the Judeo-Christian god.

    The whole idea is weird, even apart from the endorsement question.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #88  
    The arguement to display them is that they're part of our law making base... blah ... blah ... blah... which is really just an excuse by activist judges to display a chistian symbol in a gov't building.

    So the supreme court said fine, display that and you have to display other morality codes from other religions.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Because some commandments violate the constitutional rights, most commandments don't apply, some are just trivial commonplaces.
    In my view they only violate the constitution if they are the basis for the proceedings, but I certainly can understand others views as well.

    [/quote]What would you say if somebody would want to place other religious texts which contradict the constitution in a court, something like "EVERYBODY has to believe in Waheguru, in him alone, and only in him" - oops, sorry, that is what the first commandment says, only in the name of the Judeo-Christian god.[/quote] No problem here, I would not see it as having an impact on anything so it would not matter to me. Should there be a direct impact, that's when I would begin to have difficulty with it....
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The arguement to display them is that they're part of our law making base... blah ... blah ... blah... which is really just an excuse by activist judges to display a chistian symbol in a gov't building.

    So the supreme court said fine, display that and you have to display other morality codes from other religions.
    Works for me...
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Works for me...
    I'm fine with it too. However, it also means we have to keep doing this dance everytime a rural christian judge gets a wild hair to put a car sized monument of the 10 coms in the court house lobby. I would have preferred the Supreme Court had ruled in a way which would have strongly discouraged this.
  12. #92  
    just keep in mind one thing though...and this is not a yay/nay its just the way it was, but the US along with Canada were founded on the principles of christainity. I know religion takes the back seat these days, but I mean its still the foundation of both countries. That cannot be denied. We are opened minded, of course without a doubt; but when someone asks why do we get Christmas off and not Hanukah (sorry about the spelling), its because again its a Christian country
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The arguement to display them is that they're part of our law making base... blah ... blah ... blah... which is really just an excuse by activist judges to display a chistian symbol in a gov't building.
    Da, pretty silly statement, legally speaking of course . The Liberal judges use the same legal blah blah guidlines, ie, The Constitution, in their judgement as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    So the supreme court said fine, display that and you have to display other morality codes from other religions.
    Just to clarify, No they did not say they had to display other religous symbols, in this case at least (though in other rulings under diferent situations they have). They said it had to be among other secular (or at other times historical) perspective and symbols.....which I think would go along more with your point of view than mine....as I personally do not mind and actually kind of like the idea of the 10 commandents at some of these locations. Again:

    If you want to be able to gaze up at all the "Thou Shalts" and "Thou Shalt Nots" with your neighbors, a five-justice majority said Monday, you must incorporate your religious symbol into a larger monument that incorporates secular messages as well. In other words, the court ruled, some God is constitutionally good; all God is constitutionally bad. So if I were you, I would buy stock in companies that chisel the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution into stone. Those kinds of tablets are going to be flying out of landscape places like iPods out of a WalMart now that officials know for sure they are the ticket to Commandment-ville.

    In Texas there was no such record that the Commandments had been placed at the State Capital for a purely religious purpose. Indeed, they had been there for decades before anyone had the idea that they might offend constitutional principles. Moreover, the tablet was part of a much larger display of similar symbols that included a replica of the Statute of Liberty, war veterans' monuments, and even a salute to the heroes of the Alamo (it being Texas and all). In that context, the Court's majority declared, whatever religious message the Ten Commandments conveyed was sufficiently neutralized by its surroundings to allow it to pass that elusive First Amendment test.

    The hinge between the two cases — the reason why one turned out one way and the other the other way — was Justice Steven G. Breyer, who was the only justice who was a part of both majority opinions. In the Kentucky case, he joined in the eloquent language of Justice David H. Souter, who wrote: "We are centuries away from the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre and the treatment of heretics in early Massachusetts, but the divisiveness of religion in current public life is inescapable. This is no time to deny the prudence of understanding the Establishment Clause to stay neutral on religious belief, which is reserved for the conscience of the individual."

    Justice Souter's religious "neutrality," of course, is Justice Antonin Scalia's religious "intolerance." The dissent in the Kentucky case — carried also by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy — chided the majority for tolerating, even encouraging, a sort of constitutional hostility toward precisely the sort of religious symbolism that has been around since (and before) the country's inception.
  14.    #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by atnight
    Grammar.

    I hate to be the nitpicker, but the irony...

    It is so often that when one corrects another's English, they make a boo-boo as well.

    Happy spelling!!
    Thanks for pointing out something I know. It was for the benefit of our French Canadian friend. Sorry, but your "gotcha" didnt work
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by hofo_mofo
    ... the US along with Canada were founded on the principles of christainity.
    Really? I don't think this is the case. Can anybody name some Christian principles on which the US or Canada were founded on?

    Love your enemies?
    Turn the other cheek?
    If not those, which ones? Note that "Don't lie" and "Don't kill" do not count since they are not Christian principles, but common to humanity.


    Besides, here some quotes:

    George Washington -
    The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.

    Thomas Jefferson -
    I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

    Abraham Lincoln -
    The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.

    John Adams -
    The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and... foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    George Washington -
    The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.

    Thomas Jefferson -
    I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

    Abraham Lincoln -
    The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.

    John Adams -
    The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and... foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.
    Interesting, I was reading some quotes from these very same people the other day and they were the exact opposite Let me see if I can find the link again and I'll include it...

    Still looking for the link but have found:

    "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

    "It must be felt that there is no national security but in the nation's humble acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling providence."
    -- John Adams

    "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
    -- Benjamin Franklin

    "But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own."
    -- Abraham Lincoln

    "This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
    -- Isaac Newton

    "I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lords side."
    -- Abraham Lincoln

    "Not only does God play dice, but he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."
    -- Stephen Hawking

    "The more I study science, the more I believe in God."
    -- Albert Einstein
    Last edited by treo2die4; 06/28/2005 at 06:18 PM.
  17. #97  
    clulup,

    You mean to tell us that some of our founding fathers were heathens??? The US was not founded on xian values???

    Thanks for the US history lesson.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    The US was not founded on xian values???
    If it was, I'd like to know which ones. Something like "the Christian principle X is reflected in part Y of the constitution".

    ...Anybody?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    If it was, I'd like to know which ones. Something like "the Christian principle X is reflected in part Y of the constitution".
    Don't know that you will find what you're looking for......I do think, however, the founding father's actions we substantially driven by personal conviction and that personal conviction was, in large part influenced, by religion during this time in history.

    Kind of a "I know it when I see it" thing
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Interesting, I was reading some quotes from these very same people the other day and they were the exact opposite Let me see if I can find the link again and I'll include it...

    Still looking for the link but have found:

    "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

    "It must be felt that there is no national security but in the nation's humble acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling providence."
    -- John Adams

    "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
    -- Benjamin Franklin

    "But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own."
    -- Abraham Lincoln
    In the quotes I posted, the "founding fathers" refer to Christianity and Jesus. In the ones you posted, they speak about god, which is not necessarily the god Christians refer to.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions