SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
In a ruling guaranteed to offend everyone, the Supreme Court has made decisions about when the plebians (US citizens) can mention God in a public setting, and when they can't. The secular fundamentalists will writhe about any public tolerance of the G-word, or his trappings. The religious will take offence to being limited in discussing the Almighty, by the almost Almighty.
For more details:
Because SCOTUS said so!
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
What is sad is that there are idiotic zealots on both sides forcing such decisions, then crying about them when they are made...
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Before I'm ripped to shreds by the Amen Corner, can you help me to understand why it's important to anyone to have God related symbols in a courthouse?
To me it smacks of materialism (as opposed to spirituality) which is what I like to think we do better than the 7th Century Cockroaches who have more respect for a reproduction of the Koran than human life.
Either way, I swoon yet again at reading a bit of another of Scalia's dissents:
Quote:
Justice Antonin Scalia released a stinging dissent in the courthouse case, declaring, "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle."
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Another 5 to 4 ruling... perhaps Gawain was on to something.
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Well, I am happy that Don Corleone made a topic out of it; at least it's a funnier read that a copy past and a link... ~:cool:
Otherwise: uh, it seems to be a big deal if you make a big deal out of it. Why would you want them in to start with?
Louis,
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
The argument for putting the 10 commandments in a courtroom is more traditionalist then religious. It stems from 'this is the source for our laws'. And as much as it ticks people off, they are. Whether or not you believe a burning bush handed them to some dude wandering in the desert or the Jews invented them themselves and came up with a neat story, you cannot argue that Western law incorporates and relies on them heavily into their tenets and legal philosophy.
That being said, I have no problem with putting other 'basis' symbols in a courthouse such as the Magna Carta or the Code of Hammarubai.
What has me upset is the high-handed way SCOTUS presumes to have the right to tell the rest of the country when it is allowed to mention divinity and when it is not. They seized our property rights last Thursday, now they have assumed the role of 'granter', not just guaranteur of religious rights. I for one am sick of it and think the Court is essentially staging a coup.
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Quote:
Another 5 to 4 ruling... perhaps Gawain was on to something.
~;)
Meanwhile the 10 commandments and Moses are still displayed in the Supreme courts own chamber.
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
That is what I found very stupid. I mean, what's the difference from one 10 commandments and another? How can they say this one is good, this one isn't?
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Really, the basic problem with questions like this is that only a complete dork gets all exercised about whether and what version of the Ten Commandments is put up on the wall of a public building. Roy Moore, the ACLU...they're all cut from the same loser-cloth.
There can be only constructive, willful, hopeful denial that about half of the Ten Commandments at the very least match principles articulated in many American laws. Many local laws still prohibit the selling of liquor or the opening of shops on Sunday. That a child should honor his parents underlies the principle of child custody in divorce cases, and the prohibition against adultery undergird some issues of fault in divorce cases themselves. Murder is illegal in every State. Stealing is illegal in every State. Bearing false witness under oath is illegal in every State unless you're the president.
But who cares if it's in the room or not? I guess I'm missing the forest for the trees, but still. I don't understand the outrage over the commandments themselves.
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Before I'm ripped to shreds by the Amen Corner, can you help me to understand why it's important to anyone to have God related symbols in a courthouse?
To me it smacks of materialism (as opposed to spirituality) which is what I like to think we do better than the 7th Century Cockroaches who have more respect for a reproduction of the Koran than human life.
Either way, I swoon yet again at reading a bit of another of Scalia's dissents:
Your first two paragraphs I agree with. However, Scalia has a big hole in his statement. If the court makes an overly strong statement on this, it is going to end up reversing itself repeatedly on the issue. Neither extreme is in the interest of our country. The swing vote(s) is/are trying to use a common sense approach, rather than embracing either extreme. They are trying to say, "Don't evangelize on public property." I just don't think they are saying it strongly enough. That's what most of these cases are about, evangelizing and intentionally provoking a fight. So when the provoker complains, it is like challenging someone to punch them, then crying "hey, you hit me!" when struck.
I wish that this could be left to common sense but zealots are lacking in that area. I agree with Scalia's comment about consistent application of principles, but at the same time I don't see the choices as totally black and white. The extremes argue that we must either elevate one religion (or even a single denomination of it) over others, or that we must purge our public institutions of any reference to religions. I suspect most of us see a third choice:. Recognition of various religious views, without promoting them directly through our public institutions. I don't have a problem with the ten commandments being displayed, any more than if the code of Hammarubi was displayed. If it is displayed in the wrong context, then it should be removed.
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
I wonder if the entire USA rebelled and formed the New USA, basically the same but with politicians who are actually watched for obvious business interests and a crippled Supreme Court, what would happen...
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The argument for putting the 10 commandments in a courtroom is more traditionalist then religious.
That being said, I have no problem with putting other 'basis' symbols in a courthouse such as the Magna Carta or the Code of Hammarubai.
Just realized you beat me to Hammurabi. ~D
I agree with putting the 10 commandments in for traditionalist reasons, just like having "In God We Trust" on coinage. However, the cases are coming about not because of tradition, but because zealots are attempting to make a statement and proselytize. That is unacceptable to me. If they want to push this to the extreme, then I guess I have to side with removing all of the 10 commandments displays. That is not what I want. I prefer to set some guidelines and let reason prevail.
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
It seems to me that those Americans who support the increased influence of Christian mythology on your judiciary processes are unable to make one important distinction when you are complaining about "anti-Christianity" in the SC:
These decisions are not meant to specifically "beat down" Christianity. They are meant to ensure that your government is not endorsing any religion.
But since you are all so supportive of Christian judges being allowed to have monuments citing religious scriptures in their courthouses, can I assume that you would be equally supportive if a Muslim-American judge wanted to mount stone tablets quoting passages of Shariah in her courthouse?
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Quote:
But since you are all so supportive of Christian judges being allowed to have monuments citing religious scriptures in their courthouses, can I assume that you would be equally supportive if a Muslim-American judge wanted to mount stone tablets quoting passages of Shariah in her courthouse?
Well that would be ok except they dissagree with US law. It is christianity that makes our society and laws so different from Muslim nations. Should the US back Jihads?
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Islam was based off of Old Testament and New Testmanet ideas and stories.
And while US law may have been based on Christianity, it shouldn't be, and we should be moving away from our superstitious, relgious filled past, not moving it foward.
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Quote:
Islam was based off of Old Testament and New Testmanet ideas and stories.
Man you believe that crap too. Check out this. Ive posted it elsewhere in the Americas ally thread
Quote:
The Cairo Declaration begins by asserting the moral and civilizational supremacy of Islam: "The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference ... [r]eaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization ... and the role that this Ummah should play to guide ... humanity ..."
The Cairo Declaration, in pursuing its aim of finessing the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states principles that are common to all civilization, but then qualifies each of those principles in terms of the Shari'ah, the strict law that governs Islamic societies. Thus it affirms "[man's] freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah." It says the laws of Islam are "binding divine commandments ... and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore [them] ..." Further, the Declaration says that "it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari'ah prescribed reason." It says Shari'ah must rule supreme in matters of criminal law as well: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari'ah."
Freedom of speech is allowed, but—once again—there's a catch: "Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah." The only values that can be spoken or advocated are those of Islam: "Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah." Nothing critical can be said about Islam: "Information is a vital necessity to Society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm Society or weaken its faith."
Political rights are also subject to Shari'ah: "Everyone shall have the right to participate directly or indirectly in the administration of his country's public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah." And in its final article, the Declaration re-affirms the self-enclosed, impermeable-to-criticism nature of the Islamic mind: "The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration."
The bible dosent tell any governmentt how it should be run. The Koran does.
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
People are confusing religion with philosophy and it's hillarious. LMAO!
Western philosophy is NOT christianity. Western philosophy includes some Christians but it stems out of ancient greco-roman(Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Seneca, etc.) and early christian philosophy(St. Augustine, NOT JESUS) and more recently atheist and existentialist philosophy(Hume, Spinoza, Nietzsche). In other words it's impossible to map with connections.
The 10 commandments is NOT where our laws come from. That's invalid. Our laws come from the study of all types of western philosophy incorporated into a written way of keeping justice and civility in order.
That is all,
!BP! :egypt:
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Quote:
People are confusing religion with philosophy and it's hillarious. LMAO!
No one is speaking of western philosophy. The US was founded on Christain morales and ethics the fact that much of western philosophy has much in common with this is not the topic here. Christianity itself has much in common with philosophers who came before Christ.
Quote:
The 10 commandments is NOT where our laws come from.
No one said it did.
Quote:
Our laws come from the study of all types of western philosophy incorporated into a written way of keeping justice and civility in order.
Our laws come from what the constitution allows. At least thats where their supposed to come from.
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
It is christianity that makes our society and laws so different from Muslim nations.
WRONG! It would be more appropriate to say that it is religious tolerance that makes us different from many modern Muslim nations. If you go back in history, Islam was tolerant of many religions, while Christianity was playing the intolerant role that Muslim nations often play now. Our founding fathers had reason to fear religious persecution, and therefore tried to ensure a degree of religious tolerance.
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The bible dosent tell any governmentt how it should be run.
It's funny you should say that, because the very argument the "I want to paste pages of the Bible in government buildings" crowd uses is that the Bible forms the guiding principles for American government and as such, should be posted in gov't buildings/courthouses as a handy little guide to make sure legislators/judges/beaurocrats stay on the holy straight and narrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
But since you are all so supportive of Christian judges being allowed to have monuments citing religious scriptures in their courthouses, can I assume that you would be equally supportive if a Muslim-American judge wanted to mount stone tablets quoting passages of Shariah in her courthouse?
Well that would be ok except they dissagree with US law.
As does wanting judges to base their judicial decisions on Christian religious scripture. Those decisions should be based on your laws, not on some old book of fairy tales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
It is christianity that makes our society and laws so different from Muslim nations. Should the US back Jihads?
Of course you shouldn't back Jihads; you guys are a Christian nation. Stick to Crusades, they're what you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George W. Bush
This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.
~;)
