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!
Last edited by Don Corleone; 06-27-2005 at 17:13.
"A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."
Don Vito Corleone: The Godfather, Part 1.
"Then wait for them and swear to God in heaven that if they spew that bull to you or your family again you will cave there heads in with a sledgehammer"
Strike for the South
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...
Last edited by Red Harvest; 06-27-2005 at 17:25. Reason: typo
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
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:
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
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.Originally Posted by Proletariat
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.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
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.
"But if you should fall you fall alone,
If you should stand then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home."
Grateful Dead, "Ripple"
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...
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
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.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
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?
"But if you should fall you fall alone,
If you should stand then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home."
Grateful Dead, "Ripple"
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
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
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.
"A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."
Don Vito Corleone: The Godfather, Part 1.
"Then wait for them and swear to God in heaven that if they spew that bull to you or your family again you will cave there heads in with a sledgehammer"
Strike for the South
Re: SCOTUS tells its slaves when they can mention God and when they can't
Just realized you beat me to Hammurabi.
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.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks