posted
This whole thing annoys me greatly. Mostly from the fact that the Supreme Court feels like they have nothing better to do than take out religous symbols out of government establishments. Why do people even care? Do they look up to the government so much that they're afraid they'll be influenced by it? The same people who probably know almost nothing about it, except who the current president is, and what horrible things he's done?
Christian bashing has become such a huge thing now a days that people will do anything to bring it down a notch. To me, this doesn't even enter into the whole, seperation of church and state thing. "Endowed by our Creater..." Holy crap, the Decleration of Independence is unconstitutional! We must get rid of it! And before you say that's a ridiculous statement, there was a teacher who got in trouble at school for teaching the DoI to his students because of that line.
How many people would actually care if a statue of Buddha was displayed in a court house? Probably very few people. I know I wouldn't. Simply because, it's not a big deal and has no effect on me what so ever.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Declaration of Independence can't be unconstitutional, it was created before the Constitution .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Things created before the Constitution can be unconstitutional. It's things that aren't laws that can't be Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is true. Defamation common law created before the Constitution was declared unconstitutional during the last century.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The current practice of defamation law is what I would call the unconstitutional bit -- the laws passed before the constitution that weren't used (as in, just dropped off the books) afterwards wouldn't be unconstitutional, either.
edit: to clarify what I mean, doing something can be unconstitutional at any point the constitution is enforced, whatever basis the doing of it has being removed along with the finding of unconstitutionality. But the enactment, which in the case of the declaration of independence is the thing and the whole of the thing, of something before the constitution can't be unconstitutional.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Why do people even care? Do they look up to the government so much that they're afraid they'll be influenced by it?"
"How many people would actually care if a statue of Buddha was displayed in a court house?"
Would you like a real answer to these questions, or are you spouting off rhetorically?
No, I am quite serious, so give me an answer. It's the people who are trying to remove the Ten Commandments that feel like the government is imposing Christianity upon them, but these are the people that are being driven away by Christianity, because of the government. At least that's my own opinion on it. So, maybe they shouldn't try to get the Ten Commandments removed, because maybe it'll only drive people away from Christianity.
Displaying the Ten Commandments is as much imposing beliefs on people as much as having them removed, or maybe even less, but maybe that's just me.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's the people who are trying to remove the Ten Commandments that feel like the government is imposing Christianity upon them, but these are the people that are being driven away by Christianity, because of the government. At least that's my own opinion on it. So, maybe they shouldn't try to get the Ten Commandments removed, because maybe it'll only drive people away from Christianity.
Maybe it's me, but I read this three times and still don't quite get where this is going.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
To me, the people who want the Ten Commandments out of the Courts believe that government is imposing religion upon them. These people don't want to have anyone or anything tell them what it would be good to worship. So, the Ten Commandments being displayed drives them away and so they can feel safer about their choice in disliking Christianity.
Then they may think, "Well, maybe many other people will think the same way as me, and dislike Christianity more, because of this."
I don't know if I can be more clear than this.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but you could be more in line with the motives of people, many of which are displayed in this thread. Believing that the government shouldn't be trying to force a particular religion on people does not in fact make you a vampire.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, but you could be more in line with the motives of people, many of which are displayed in this thread. Believing that the government shouldn't be trying to force a particular religion on people does not in fact make you a vampire.
Sorry, I'm not talking about people on this board. I should have said so. I doubt that there are many, well any, who actually worked to try and get them taken down. I wouldn't be annoyed if anymore religous icons weren't erected, but for the government to go out of there way to bring them down seems like a waste of time to me when there are more important things to do.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be one who would argue to bring them out, unless they were in the context of a larger display of legal history. And it's not because I fear the government is imposing religion on me.
It's because I don't want to enter a courtroom and feel I can't get justice. If I don't believe in the first four commandments over the judge's head, and it's implied that those commandments are what he's basing his rulings on, how am I to get a fair trial?
When you walk into a courtroom the only laws that should have any impact over you are those of the United States of America. Anything that suggests otherwise is wrong.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why do people even care? Do they look up to the government so much that they're afraid they'll be influenced by it?"
I care because, as a non-Christian, I want to be assured that I will be treated with the same respect and will receive the same legal process accorded to Christian citizens. I am not confident that a courtroom which prominently displays such commands as "I am the Lord, thy God" will in fact extend this right to me.
On a broader basis, I am concerned that Christian iconography in government is often used to proselytize AND to browbeat people with religious justifications for questionable secular policies. But I don't believe the latter is unconstutitional; I'm merely inconvenienced and irritated by the assumption that the areligious are in some way morally inferior.
The argument that government could be better engaged in other things is of course valid. But as our government seems to have plenty of time to involve itself in lots of useless side projects, I don't think this is much of an imposition.
quote:How many people would actually care if a statue of Buddha was displayed in a court house?
An enormous number, probably. I think you underestimate the passion of some conservative religious groups in this country.
That said, Buddhism is one of the few religions in this country that could probably get away with posting some of its ideals on a wall in a school without being picketed or firebombed -- mainly because, as a non-proselytizing religion, it's not really seen as a significant threat to any "real" faith.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I dunno. I suspect lots of people would object to having swastikas plastered all over the courtroom.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I would be one who would argue to bring them out, unless they were in the context of a larger display of legal history. And it's not because I fear the government is imposing religion on me.
It's because I don't want to enter a courtroom and feel I can't get justice. If I don't believe in the first four commandments over the judge's head, and it's implied that those commandments are what he's basing his rulings on, how am I to get a fair trial?
When you walk into a courtroom the only laws that should have any impact over you are those of the United States of America. Anything that suggests otherwise is wrong.
I wasn't aware that one of the questions asked to the defendent were, "Are you a Christian?" But then again I have yet to break a law. Have you seen this before or experienced first hand?
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Oh, I dunno. I suspect lots of people would object to having swastikas plastered all over the courtroom.
I don't know much about Hindu, so I wouldn't know what to think about it immideatly. A Nazis swastika would be a different matter and I'd hope that it being there wouldn't say anything about that paticular courthouse. If it did, then the federal government would hopefully step in and end any horrible things going on in there.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wasn't aware that one of the questions asked to the defendent were, "Are you a Christian?"
There have been instances of judges ruling using their personal views of morality rather than U.S. law, yes, and they are often, but not always, overturned on appeal, which doesn't really answer your question but then I didn't understand what your question had to do with my position. If you're asking have I ever been grilled on my religious beliefs in a courtroom, I'm going to assume you're misunderstanding my point or you're being funny.
Scroll up a bit. "When you walk into a courtroom the only laws that should have any impact over you are those of the United States of America. Anything that suggests otherwise is wrong."
That's a fairly concise description of my position. To refute it, you would need to demonstrate why suggesting otherwise is beneficial.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a matter of fact, Mr_Megalomaniac, witnesses don't have to swear on the Bible precisely because it violates the separation of Law and religion.
And no, the suit which won that right was not brought by atheists. Jehovah'sWitness fought the former requirement because they are not allowed to swear due to a much stricter interpretation of "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."; many other Judeo-Christian-Muslim sects have equally strict interpretations, at least. Even religious sects which allow their members to swear in filed Friend-of-the-Court briefs supporting the position of Jehovah'sWitness.
Similarly, the former requirement to swear allegiance to the Flag was overturned. Lest you think that silly, many of those who were sent to Nazi concentration camps and death camps were sent because they refused to swear allegiance to Hitler due to religious reasons.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wasn't aware that one of the questions asked to the defendent were, "Are you a Christian?"
There have been instances of judges ruling using their personal views of morality rather than U.S. law, yes, and they are often, but not always, overturned on appeal, which doesn't really answer your question but then I didn't understand what your question had to do with my position. If you're asking have I ever been grilled on my religious beliefs in a courtroom, I'm going to assume you're misunderstanding my point or you're being funny.
Scroll up a bit. "When you walk into a courtroom the only laws that should have any impact over you are those of the United States of America. Anything that suggests otherwise is wrong."
That's a fairly concise description of my position. To refute it, you would need to demonstrate why suggesting otherwise is beneficial.
In those cases it's not displaying the Ten Commandments that is the problem. It's the judges and it would seem more than likely that these judges would do the same thing whehter or not the Ten Commandments were there. This would be one of the things that the Supreme Court may have more important things to do then get read of t TCs from courthouses.
And as for asking if you've ever been put on trial, well, that was a bit of a joke.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: As a matter of fact, Mr_Megalomaniac, witnesses don't have to swear on the Bible precisely because it violates the separation of Law and religion.
And no, the suit which won that right was not brought by atheists. Jehovah'sWitness fought the former requirement because they are not allowed to swear due to a much stricter interpretation of "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."; many other Judeo-Christian-Muslim sects have equally strict interpretations, at least. Even religious sects which allow their members to swear in filed Friend-of-the-Court briefs supporting the position of Jehovah'sWitness.
Similarly, the former requirement to swear allegiance to the Flag was overturned. Lest you think that silly, many of those who were sent to Nazi concentration camps and death camps were sent because they refused to swear allegiance to Hitler due to religious reasons.
I've don't really seen the purpose of swearing on the Bible. It's against the law to commit perjury. That should be enough.
edit silly spell error. For some reason I decided to correct this one and none of the others.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I answered a question about an actual event with other actual events. My response had as much -- or as little -- to do with the issue at hand as your question, I think.
As it happens, I agree that the Supreme Court should have better things to do than get rid of the Ten Commandments from courthouses. That's why I don't think they should be put there in the first place (unless they are part of a larger context), nor should the lower courts' already sensible and defensible decisions be kicked upstairs just because someone didn't like them.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I answered a question about an actual event with other actual events. My response had as much -- or as little -- to do with the issue at hand as your question, I think.
As it happens, I agree that the Supreme Court should have better things to do than get rid of the Ten Commandments from courthouses. That's why I don't think they should be put there in the first place (unless they are part of a larger context), nor should the lower courts' already sensible and defensible decisions be kicked upstairs just because someone didn't like them.
And as I have said, I wouldn't care if they stopped putting them there, but now they're there. So at least we have found something to agree on through this debate. Time to celebrate with an iced cold Dr. Pepper... or be forced to help clean the basement. Dang...
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the cases these decisions were based on, one display in Texas was left in place because, as you suggest, it was there already, and because it was part of a larger display and had secular meaning.
The second, a framed copy of the Ten Commandments that hung in a Kentucky courthouse, was deemed inappropriate. First because it hung alone, and then because even after other displays were hung alongside it to put it in context, the text accompanying stated that "the Ten Commandments provide the moral background of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our legal tradition."
The rulings made it clear that posting the Commandments in the context of a historical display can be acceptable while posting them as a purely religious statement is an unconstitutional endorsement. The rulings also suggested displays that have existed for years without complaint, such as the one in Texas, are more acceptable than recent ones that have been contested.
The Court has not called for the instant removal of all Ten Commandments displays in every courtroom in the land, regardless of what other media outlets and professional complainers say.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
