Quote:
Originally posted by j8ear
I think I've done gone off and aruged myself two positions ;-)
1. When government goes and tells ANYONE to take down anything, ESPECIALLY religous things, it sickens me. You don't like it, you go and take it down. You want it up, go put it up. Bring your friends if you think you need help.
I did say that I knew nothing about the justice, if the cats a hard corp zealot who frequently quotes scripture in his rulings and demonstrates that he's ~very~ christian in his decision making process, and this was his only motivation for erecting the tablets, then the people of Alabama should go take down the ten commandents. Not the fucking federal governmemt. I submit that the first ammendment to the constitution expressly forbids them from doing so.
Again, I'm no constitutional scholar.
|
Forgive me for being rude but this is the stupidest argument I've seen in a while.
1. If a private citizen puts up a religious display on private property, it's protected speech because it's his opinion. However, if an agent of the federal government (say, a judge) puts up a similar religious display on PUBLIC property, it's considered an endorsement of religion by the government he represents, and is out of line.
2. The people should take it down?! Are you condoning vigilatism? They should remove displays they don't like from private property? From public property? Last I'd checked we're a nation of laws and this (religious display on public property) falls squarely in the jurisdiction of the federal government. True, the people could choose not to re-elect this judge (if he's elected and not appointed) but this is clearly a case for the law, and not for armed bandits. Your reasoning is squirrely and your impulses are uncivilized.
Quote:
2. The ten commandments. Love them or hate them, adhere to them or defile them. It doesn't matter. They are the oldest written guidelines for human existance (or damn close to it certainly, anyone know for sure?). Any and all such lists or guidelines should be ingrained in EVERY educated persons mind. All of them. From all religions, from all historically significant legislation, from all civilizations, past present and future. Sort them out, reconcile them other with knowledge and experience you posess, and develop your own guidelines.
To deem the ten commandments ~contentious~ seems to me to be a bit extreme. Geez, it's a list, religious in orgin. Do with it what you please. Do with ALL the lists what please. You just might be better of for the experience.
|
If the judge had chosen to display texts from a number of religions it might be a different story (although it would open up its own can of worms - contention over the texts chosen, the translations, religions being left out, etc.). However, he chose to display only a Christian text, which consitutes an implicit endorsement of the religion it hails from by a representative of the government. Clearly a violation of the first amendment.
And actually, Hammurabi's code was the earliest written (extant) guidelines for governing humans, and I don't see any judges lining up to post it. Do your research.