Easy on the personal squibs and jabs folks were just talking. Why does this get blood boiling? I'm not taking offense or returning ad hominem's. Please keep it rational, and on thread would ya. You'll notice also that I'm asking alot of questions too...I don't have the answers...
Quote:
Originally posted by lurkette
Forgive me for being rude but this is the stupidest argument I've seen in a while.
|
Fogiven.
Quote:
Originally posted by lurkette
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.
|
If you feel that way, more power to you. If that influences your personal constitution, I feel sorry for you, Lurkette. You seem more enlightened then that. I don't want to believe that you REALLY think that it means ~you~ are being influenced religiously by your government. What about teaching it in school? Or even learning about the seven deadly sins, or hammarubi's code or the magna carta, or the rosetta stone, or Stone Henge for that matter. Why not have the federal government forbid teaching these things in school, at ~public~ institutions?
To me the only thing out of line is the federal government getting involved.
Quote:
Originally posted by lurkette
[B]2. The people should take it down?! Are you condoning vigilatism? ....clearly a case for the law, and not for armed bandits. Your reasoning is squirrely and your impulses are uncivilized.
|
Nonsense. If you think the only way to have someone remove something...on public OR private property...is with armed thugs, who's really uncivilized?
The people could even use the local court system if they wanted to go the SLOW assed beaurocratically ineffiecient way. Eliminate the funding for the monument, or however they spend and allocate resources down in 'bama. Just a thought, an alternative to the feds if you will.
Regardless, he's not a federal judge, He is the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT. He's no legal or judicial sophmore. I have seen nothing to indicate an evangelical motive or even resistance from those under his particular jurisdiction.
Federal laws...it's always your solution, huh?
Quote:
Originally posted by lurkette
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.
|
It is christian, jewish, and muslim in origin, probably representing the largest single slice of humanity possible. It's orgins in religion are much less important then it's orgins in humanity.
Nothing clear about it.
Quote:
Originally posted by lurkette
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.
|
Why? I've got you to do it for me
Ask questions and some of them get answered.
Don't be so angry,
bear