Alabama Justice Won't Remove Commandments
 

this guy is acting like the courthouse is his private residence moving things in at night and stuff.

there is no historic value to the monument, since it was smuggled in buy moore at night after he was elected into office.

and secondly, he has defied orders from a federal court. the fed court clearly has jurisdiction cuz this can go back to the 1st ammendment.

So if I, or many of my friends, ever becomes a Federal judge we could put up "Cthulthu Rules!" chunk o' stone and piss on the Constitution?

What is it about religion that makes people lose their ability to reason?

J.T.

I think religious people just take things way too seriously and are offended if someone doesn't believe as they do. Trust me, I know. I've had to deal with it my entire life. As far as I'm concerned, religion is just as bad as crack.

And yes, I obviously think this guy is an asshole and should be tossed in jail.

I think religion can be a wonderful thing for some. It has been a major factor in the development of our country and is arguably the foundation of many of our laws.

Justice Moore is correct about its place in our history and its place in some people's personal lives. It (religion....and the ten commandments) just doesn't belong in the courthouse. He takes a religious view of history instead of a historical view of religion.

In the end, he is hurting two causes (religion and our legal system) that are surely near to his heart. Good intentions.......I suspect........just dead wrong.

I am so on board with this Justice. I know nothing about him, his politics, his rulings, or his history, but I love it when some one takes on a punk ass federal blacked robed mob of psuedo-legislators/judicios.

Can't wait to see what happen's when an armed mob of bible-belters, takes on a small contingent of jack-booted Treasury Agents.

And when the lamb broke open the second seal, the crown vics rolled towards the southern court house to be greeted by....

-b

oh, j8ear, how I miss you when I'm not exposed to you for a length of time.

I heard about this. The guy really needs to take it down. It shouldn't be there in the first place...

Good for him, he's right religion, more importantly the judeo-christian influence are at the heart of the foundation of the country. This is a clear example of quasi-Liberal Facists trying to strip America of all Religion. What is so wrong with the Ten Commandments?

Nothing is wrong with it, in church, or in your home. It has no place in politics. This has been established. The only people that seem to have a problem with this are the fruitcakes that think everyone else should be Christian, fully missing the fact that part of what America was founded on was religious freedom.

What's wrong with the Ten Commandments? Well, nothing, really. They're good rules to follow. But it seems a little stupid to venerate them above all other ethical standards.

It's not an attack on "all Religion." Christians, Jews, Muslims, and followers of Baha'i could possibly construe it as an attack on their way of life, but America isn't totally comprised of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and followers of Baha'i.

As for the tradition/foundation argument - well, there are times when traditions need to be jettisoned for the sake of progress. See also: women and the right to vote, blacks and the right to vote, interracial marriage, and (still ongoing) homosexual marriage.

aaah, thanks? :) Back at ya...

Seriously though. Here is what the constitution says ~exclusively~ as far as religion is concerned. I can not find a single other mention:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It's actually in the first ammendment to the Constitution.

To me that says no law can be passed which restricts (insert religious thing here) what-so-ever...

I realize that some where 'separation of church and state' became a familiar mantra, and suspect someone knows where it originated. Please enlighten.

I still thinks this mean that state stays out of church and church does what ever it wants.

I don't understand how it has EVER been interpretted otherwise.

ANY legislation or regulation from the government that SAYS anyone, anywhere, in any circumstance, can OR can't have or do ANY religious thing is unconstitutional.

I am trying to stay away from the merits or dangers of any specific religion. I'm not sure it's all that mundane. I am hoping to take this thread down the path of reasonable consitutional interpretation.

Comments,

-bear

They should just put a big wall in front of it with a sign that says "Ten Commandments viewing area, enter at your own risk." That way anybody who could be offended by it would know ahead of time and they wouldn't have to look at it. Problem solved, disaster averted.

The original phrase of Separation of Church and State came back when Thomas Jefferson was the President. Some Baptists were being persecuted against (in Virginia I believe) and either the local or state government was oppressing them. Now these Baptists wrote to Thomas Jefferson asking to be helped out. Now TJ wrote back a letter saying to the extent that he was for the separation of church and state, but, so as to protect the Church from being harmed by the State. See, the Founding Fathers didn't create the First Amendment to keep Christians, or Jews, or those of other religions from being active participators in politics and law. They did it to stop the creation of a National Church, like England had, because they were for other people practicing their own religions without having to do it secretly while out in the open paying omage to the National Church and it's Government, because that is oppression. Most of you probably know that I am a Christian. I do feel the need to spread my faith, and sometimes I get very passionate about what I speak about and go too far, then I have to calm myself down and think, and use what I deeply and truly know to help my case. Now I have no problem with the Ten Commandments, Nine of them helped to form our country's legal basis, (Thou shalt have no other God before Me, was left out, understandbly, due to our acceptance of people who didn't worship the way that Christians or Jews do.) Perhaps that is what people take offense to, is that particular Commandment. Yet the Judge is still correct in stating that the Judeo-Christian Ethics were the foundation of the legal and political system in America (their ethics, not their respective churches and synagogues). Personally I don't think he's trying to establish a national church, he is merely putting up something that he believes. That the legal system was based upon moral teachings from the Judeo-Christian Ethics. And he's right.

<-----------enlightened

These same Christian loons don't want blacks and women to vote. Gays marry? They'd rather see them dead.

The ten commandments themself are fine by themselves, but flawed. Tolerance isn't on the list.

Which ones are these?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa to state that all Christians are racist and sexist and completely anti-gay is unfair and inappropriate. I have no problem with any of those groups, I may disagree with what they say sometimes, but hey, no one agrees on everything, it doesn't mean I don't respect them. I disagree with the gay lifestyle but it doesn't mean I can't have a conversation with them, or even be friends with them. Sure, the Ten Commandments don't say anything about tolerance, but the Bible sure as heck does, remember the Golden Rule "Treat others the way you want to be treated" that's basically a good portion of what Christ teaches.

i'm sure that y'all are familiar with the lemon test

The Lemon Test
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:

It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose.


The practice either promotes or inhibits religion. definately promotes religion aka christianity


Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government with a religion. definately again! the guy moved this in the middle of the night notifying only a christian tv station

It does? It promotes christianity? Really? I don't see it.

Not sure how who was notified plays into it, but personally the only way the government could get involved was by making a rule about it?

No rule, not involved. Rule, involved.

-bear

well, ten commandments is something that pertains only to christianity (and judaism??).
how would you feel if an insert from the quran was placed there instead?? it's insert is promoting that religion that it came from.

--------

the courthouse is public property. the chief justice shouldnt be able to move stuff in and out of public property without consulting anyone.

Ten commandment's is in the Quran isn't it?

It would depend on what was posted? I'm sure somethings might concern me. I still don't think they would have to come down because the government says so?

-bear

well, a federal court said so. arent we still a law-based society?

Dude....federal courts are overturned ALL THE TIME.

I think we're supposed to be a law-based society, and by and large are...however, I think everyone has a right to stand up against, and defy laws that are incorrect. In fact I propose that we even have an obligation to do so.

You?

-bear

Civil Disobedience my friend, a boring as hell book, but still good advice. Federal courts also stated at one time that segregation is lawful and fair, the feds aren't all knowing and they make mistakes. I'm going straight to the Constitution on this one, it does not establish a national church, nor does it restrict the practice of other religions anymore than a cross on a tombstone would, therefore I deem it to be lawful, and therefore able to be continued.

yes, overturned by a higher court (the supreme court).

but their decisions are not always disobeyed cuz that would just throw the whole system out.

But what about defying the supreme court? They have in their day deemed slavery legal, prevented women from voting, interred americans of Japanese orgins...etc, etc, etc.

Would you be on board with just plain ole defying those rulings? I would. I'd like to think I'd do something about it too.

I don't know Dude...we have an ammendment that so NO restrictions on arms, yet have restrictions on arms. We have one that says you can say whatever you want, of course they're things you can't say, something exists which says the government can't pass laws concerning religion...yet they are all over the place. Where do we draw the line?

This is a Christian founded country. The Christians decided they would also tolerate each and every other religion or lack there-of that this world had to offer. And guess what...I think they have.

How a leap to where we are progressed I can't fathom.

WTF...I realize we are a nation very inconsistent with our own ideals, but it gets kind of rediculous. This is one of those very issues which makes ALL OF OUR Constitutional gaurantees very important. We can challenge the establishment and punish it for violating these gaurantees.

-bear

well, when was the last time an order of the supreme court as disobeyed? lincoln? (could very well be wrong on that).
well, i continue to rest my faith on the judiciary branch.

I've no clue either...although that being a fact, I thinks it's high time for a new one. Defying that is...

Keep things from getting two stagnant ;-)

-b

My only problem is that Christians feel that they should have more rights than everyone else, which is obviously wrong. If I was a judge and I put up a big stone plaque that said "All hail Satan" you would say it should be removed, but the 10 Commandments shouldnt? It promotes religion, and it does not belong in the court room. Im not saying that the 10 Commandments are a bad thing, they obviously have a good message to put accross, but the courtroom isnt the place to do it.

Really? Care to back this up?

It wouldn't be 'I' or even 'you'...it would be 'US' That's why it wouldn't even go up...because of US.

Do you see the difference? If WE could create an atmosphere where it was acceptable to put up "all hail satan..." well then guess what...UP IT GOES.

AND the only problem I would have would be when the government told us to take it down!

Actually the last time a Supreme Court ruling was defied was during the internment of the Japanese American citizens during World War II. I don't know, it could be even more recent than that, but that's the first one that comes to mind. Like I keep saying, go back to the Constitution and determine if the judge is violating theses terms (Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion nor the free practices of). Does it establish a National Church?? Last time I checked, we haven't had any decrees like "In private you may be whatever you want, but in public you must pay omage to *insert whatever religion here* and to this Government." Nor does this monument restrict someone from practicing their own religion, last I checked, my Muslim friends are still worshipping Allah, my Jewish friends are still worshipping Yahweh and waiting for the Messiah to come, and my Atheist friends couldn't give a damn. If Satan had something valuable to contribute to a moral legal system (well, we do have lawyers...) then fine, put something up there where Satan supports the freedom of all peoples and a fair and just law system. So why not put up something and say "Hey, this is where we got our ideas for our legal system from, check it out, it's some good stuff, cuz it's obviously worked for the past two hundred years." The Ten Commandments and the Bible are not just religious rhetoric to be thrown at people at random times. They have a basis for a very good legal system, and that's how most of our government came into being. The three branch system comes from the book of Elijah, most of the laws of the Bible are just laws, and those that we figured out won't really work for our time period, we flushed. I see this as mainly showing and giving credit where credit is due on what values our nation was founded upon.

come on..........how many religions do you think forbids killing? adultury? and all that stuff the 10 commandments says?

do we put them up for display in public places?

maybe the 10 commandments had something to do with the laws, but judges today dont refer to the bible to make their decisions.

And how many of those religions do you think had an extreme effect on the founding of the United States?

ok, the nazi's had an extreme effect on present day germany.

do the germans plaster the swastika everywhere?

whether or not the effect was good will be different depending on whose eyes you are lookin thru.

You're right. Germany is one of the few countries in the western world (france is another) where ANY mention or symbol of Nazism is banned with severe penalties for even associating with it.

Germany's Nazi past is not a proud one. It is a shameful one. It seems to me it has a profound effect on Germany.

How does this relate to the subject at hand?

-bear

well, to me the religious involvement in the early days (especially the puritan ones where there was lil tolerance) are shameful.

Ever notice how often you start your posts with "WELL?"

Those puritan days were pre-constitution I believe. I suspect one of the very reasons for the first ammendments' gaurantees.

Conur on shameful.

Any subsequest one's are equally as shameful. Actually even MORE shameful since protection from such activities was gauranteed by constitutional ammendment.

Again, not sure how this relates to the question at hand.

Just to recap:

1st ammendment which says the gov CANNOT get involved in religion, versus...the governement restricting it.

-bear

The main irony of this is that the man who is sworn to uphold the law is defying it. Honestly, If you are a judge and you are handed a ruling by a higher court and you defy it, why would you expect any of YOUR rulings to be upheld?

Because Christians think that God is the highest authority, silly. Clearly a mere judge is outranked by the Allmighty.

Just posting to add my support to The_Dude. I have absolutely nothing against the Ten Commandments, although I am an athiest. They are very fine 'rules', or whatnot, and ones I tend to follow morally. However, because they are tied with religion, they have no place on our courts, or any federal building for that matter. I honestly can't understand ANY arguments for this justice. Get it out of there.

No, but if you become an Alabama Supreme Court Justice then yes, you can put that up and piss on the Constitution.

Religion has no place in politics, or in the government. Religion is something that helps define a person - or founds the basis for their morals, if you prefer to look at it that way - but it should never be something which is forced on others. That way lies the path to zealotry, and we're close enough to that as a Puritanically obsessive society already.

Ah, the hell with it. If it gets much more screwy around these parts, I think I'll go pay curveedv8 a visit in Australia!

What is with you people? Having the Ten Commandments is not a religious endorsement. They are 9 practical laws (8 if your cool with adultery) that have been at the foundation of morals for our country and countless others for centuries. And Wry1 calling America a puritanically obsessive society is insanity and demonstrates the anti-religious attitude this country is taking, not to mention that it couldn't be further from the truth.

i dont see how 10 commandments had any influence over our legal system

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me - err......how is this related to our judicial system?

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' - again, relevance? it is legal to create any carved image....

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' - oh HELL NO GOD DAMN IT! this is also permitted.

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' - nope. no relevance to the american judical system. almost all the "blue laws" are gone.

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' - govt has no law that makes you honor your father and mother!

SIX: 'You shall not murder.' - finally.........but almost all the religions on earth say somethin against murder

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery. - Hhehe! we all know about this one.

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' - same as murder. this is also something in common with most of the world religions.

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' - i cant quite interpret that one well. if that means you shall not lie then it's completely irrelevent as people lie everyday and you usally dont get prosecuted for lying (perjury is different)

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' - err.....i can covet whatever i want.......as a matter of fact, i'm coveting jennifer aniston right now! :D

as you can see, the 10 commandments have very very very minutely little relevance to our justice system.

Well thanks for refreshing my memory /humbled

Nine is considered as a perjury law. In ancient Israel, lying on the stand was up there with murder and adultery because they were also swearing before God that they were telling the truth. If you want to see the relevance that anything Christian that has had an effect on the United States, look up a lot of the quotes by the Founding Fathers, even the Unitarians like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson agreed that the US was founded on the principles and morals of Christianity. Because, my friends, like it or not, this is how the FF did it, both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence have many references to God and how England defied the Rights of Man, given by God. Look, I'm not saying that Christianity is the correct religion for everyone (tho I guess we'll all find out when we die) but what I am saying is that the Bible, and the Ten Commandments, do lay down some good morals and laws, and the FF recognized this and used them to help create the United States of America. To deny this, I believe to be folly, because it is wrong to remove something legitimate from a great point in history. You can disagree with Christianity, that's none of my business what you do with your religious life, but I am asking you to not try to wipe any semblance of Christianity from the face of the Earth, or keep people from speaking their minds who are Christian, and who have a legitimate point of view. Please do not write us off merely because you don't think that God exists and say, "Oh those damn Bible Beaters need to shut up, they can't be saying stuff like that, it might offend someone." Or something to that extent. Actually listen to what we're saying before you discredit everything we believe in, you might find that our viewpoints are not quite as radical as you think.

Religion has a role in politics in whatever way a person of religion who runs for or is elected or appointed into office deems.

Politics HAS NO PLACE IN RELIGION. You don't like it change it.

Making laws dictating ANYTHING about religion is unconstitutional.

-bear

Oh, I think I just had an aneurism.

you can do better then that?

if you guys are gonna argue that religion has a role in government, how are we different from the taliban? saudi arabia? iran?

religion has a role in their govt affairs, and it is only ONE religion (same as here).

if pat robertson was elected president, US would be just like those countries in a week. (maybe less, give or take :D).

and archer, i have nothing against christianity. i am very very tolerant and i believe in freedom of religion. i do not want to wipe of christianity or any other religion. i also want freedom from religion for govt institutions.

We are different because we aren't theocratic, the religious elite doesn't run our country, and our laws are INSPIRED by Christianity, not dictated by it. Also unlike those intolerant cess pool countries all religion's are allowed.

Here is something said by Ben Franklin I think is very valid to this connversation. He said this at the drafting of the constitution when all the founding fathers were at each others throats and about ready to walk out on the crazy notion of Independence.

He said: I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground with his notice (reference to Jesus in Matthew 10) is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have bben assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this... I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning.

This stirring speech was what held the FF together, it started the tradition of prayer in the house and senate. What about what Thomas Jefferson said in regard to religion "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed THEIR ONLY FIRM BASIS, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are of the gift of God?... Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.

Last quote, by Abraham Lincoln taken from his Proclomation for a National Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer.

He said: We have been the recipientsof the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved these many yearsin peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in Peace, and mulitplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have becoe to self-sufficent to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness. (April 30, 1863)

Obviously God did hold great meaning for this country, why have we suddenly gotten to good for him?

at that time, the country was overwhelimingly christian.

so, there was little opposition to the mingling of church and state.

now, the country is very diverse. very very diverse.

if the state allows one religion to publish it's materials on state grounds, it should give the same opportunity for all others (also for atheistic works).

What can I do better than? What?

1) Atheism is not a religion, It is a belief in nothing, so no it shouldn't have the same opportunity as ANY religion.

Time for my Lion King/ Pride Rock theory, I just thought of this but it makes sense (I am still ironing out some of the details).

Mufasa is America in its Greatness, He believes in the circle of life which is how he governs his land, I will equate that to Christianity, because that is what our country was founded on, it was our base.

Next we have the evil scar which I will equate to the religion hating quasi-liberal facists.

We have Simba. He falls under ," If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything". Simba represents the American people who are afraid to stand up to the Quasi-Liberal facists for fear of being deemed non-pc or "intolerant".

This is where the theory comes into play. Scar killed Mufasa and has scared Simba off, this is the point we are coming to in the country right now. Pride Rock which was America is falling into turmoil, cause Scar fucked up what made us great, our respect for the circle of life. Simba hasn't met Timon and Pumba yet so he hasn't worked up the balls to kick Scar's ass yet, but I guarentee he will.

I like it, what do you guys think?

i'm lost......i didnt pay any attention to lion king.

What?!? Lion King was a great movie!

i'm not a disney-person.

i watched parts of it while people in my house are watching it (like the fight scene with the lionesses at the end).

What kind of a sick monster doesn't like disney!?!?!?

*Promptly picks up jaw from floor* You don't like Disney??? Granted, their stories are storybook, but then again, most of their stuff comes frome storybooks. Anyways, Mojo, the analogy is decent, only because all analogies are decent (they all oversimplify, but they get the point across). I mean, I agree, for the most part, there are a lot of liberals who tell Christians to sit down and shut up because apparently, someone died and made them Emperor of Rome, and gave them the right to throw us to the prevorbial lions. I'm glad that all liberals aren't like that, it's probably more like a 50/50 split on that deal there. To me, you can't remove the foundation of the Christian principles anymore than you can remove the Founding Fathers from the forming of our nation. There's an old saying, and I'm sure The_Dude has heard it, "Dance with the date that brought ya." I personally am not asking much. I just want people to realize that the United States were founded on the basic principles of Christianity (not the basic principles of the Church) and that if this is denied, well then you'd have to rewrite the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence completely to remove any mention of God. And if someone wants to rightfully acknowledge this, without creating a national church or restricting the free practices of religion, then that's kool. I just hope the Supreme Court actually looks at the Constitution when they eventually have to come to a decision on this.

So you liked me analogy?

Look, this highlights the beginning of transitions from greek/roman/norse multigod peaganistic human sacrifice religions. It took a while, but man kind is a better species because of the marginalization, suppresion of these. Maybe it was simply evolving? This concept, in the bible thuming, execute those who violate it way, is offensive. I am not a big fan of evangelizing or prothelytizing, and know how to tell someone to stop. That's MY job, to stop them from offending me. Not the governments. Thus begins the transition to monotheistic beliefs. No big deal, who's to say for sure whether for better or worse? Not me. Your right, they're are no laws about it that i can think of presently. Why does that mean the government needs to tell a judge to remove it?

OOOH...carved image...better get the government to make rulings, commision studies, pander to think tanks, and assess the threat to national security. Laws, laws, laws. Maybe that's one of the problems. We took these 10 pretty simple and all encompassing guidelines and added to them.

Like it or not pal, you throw out Hell No God Damn it....and you will offend some people. Do you talk like that in front of your mom? To your children? Will you? It might not be a criminal issue, but it is definately a civil issue.

Your right, most people don't go to church on Sunday. At the same time work weeks are 40 hours long with incentive for additional hours. Work week is usually m-f, saturdays AND sunday's off now. Our legal system has taken this concept and increased it? And don't be fooled. Blue laws are ALL OVER the place.

Concur

Does this mean you shouldn't? Doubtful.

Thank goodness this one doesn't leave much to the imagination.

WHAT do we all know about this one? I'll tell you what I know. You commit adultery and you are a cheater. YOU HAVE CHEATED AND LIED TO SOMEONE. I have to revert back to the civil vs. criminal portions of justice. Not all states have gone to no fault divorces. ~this is the government invalidating your contract with another person, and applying it's own judgement, btw~ In most states adulters have violated the marriage contract and are punished for it.

I think this one needs no comment.

Aside from the obvious criminal judicial application of this concept, "People lie eveyday" is a weak arguement for insisting the government force removal of this list from a state supreme court. It's even a weak arguement to make concerning how this commandment is ~NOT~ applicable to today's judicial climate.

In fact dude, people are prosecuted frequently for lying. It is a fact that the federal government has enacted laws which expempt it from lying to you, yet forbids, and punishes severly being lied to. It is a felony to lie to an FBI agent conducting an investigation. Many are also even persecuted, outside the confines of the law. For example, Martha Stewart, stock valuation, or Saddam Hussiem, WMD?

School in summer dude...school in summer.

Even in your closely manufactured interpretations of the commandments I think they have significant relevance to just about every human experience, and are the single biggest contribution to jurisprudence as we know it.

Taken as concepts and understanding that this original list of ten guidelines has shaped the world as it exists today is compelling.

I wonder if the golden rule (do unto others...) is a product of the ten commandments or vice-versa? Any one know?

Does anyone know the seven deadly sins? They are quite religious in orgin, and quite fascinating in nature. Do you have a problem with them? Why.

I don't want to go all faithful and shit on anyone, because I'm far from it. I do know that religion is a big part of everyone's experience. Religious, Non-religious, and athiests all have to deal with religion all the time. Regarldess, when talking about guidelines for human existance, WE CANNOT restrict it because of it's orgins. Religious or Secular?

That's what they're doing. THEY, the government, is restricting it. They are telling US we can't do it. Can't put that brilliant list there. That's not, I think, what they (the founders) envisioned.

-bear

You do realize our laws stem from British common law, right? It's not as though our Founding Fathers created our legal system. Our government was modeled after the Native Americans, BTW. An excellent book on the topic is Indian Givers.

That aside, the "Ten Commandments" are from Judaism, not christianity.

That aside, the earliest codified legal system is from Hammurabi--not even Judaism.

All that aside, how does any of this establish a judge's right to erect anything on state property?

PLEASE tell me you aren't calling him out for some spelling/grammar/capitalization error. If you are, I will make your life a living hell. :icare:
Compelling in what way? I wouldn't call his interpretations "manufactured" either. He simply asked how most of the commandments were relevant to law. And please, don't bring civil law into this; we all know how fucked up civil law can be and how it's pretty much just what the judge or jurors had for breakfast the morning of the sentencing.

bear. You're getting incoherent again. You are FREE to practice any religion you like, so long as it doesn't involve something crazy like human sacrifice, but "the government" simply wants to ensure that public servants serve the public, and not just their vision of God. Let me ask how you would feel if a Muslim somehow became a federal judge and wanted to enforce the idea of completely covered women in his courtroom. Would you support that?

I have never...nor do I suspect I ever will comment on spelling or grammer.

Actually there is something much more significant about :"school in summer"...some one will figure it out. It's a jab to be sure, at somoeone who brags about coveting.

I fail to see how a judge of any demonination forcing someone to wear ANYTHING is in anyway shape or form relates to the discussion at hand.

Ten Commandments in the court house vs a judge forcing women to wear a veil? What's the connection.

Nor do I see a relevance to what sect of religion it stems or what our countries form of government is based on.

To discount as irrevlevant civil law because it's "fucked up" as you claimed is rediculous, K...it's us...here and now, and it, as was criminal law, directly influenced by the ten commandments.

I'll let the dude defend his own definitions. He didn't ask anything...he told us how his ideas of the commandments restrictions were not applicable. I think his thought process has been exposed as non-sensical.

"the government" simply wanting to ensure that public servants server the public, and not just their vision if God, is laudible. Yet how is it possible. Must you then discriminated against those who believe in God? Otherwise their vision will interfere or even influence or even worse INSPIRE their work? I think using your arguements that indeed you must. ONLY declared athiests should be allowed to work for the government...ever. Is this what you believe? Do you really believe that religion has no place in the lives of those who serve the public? Is it even possible?

You never answered my questions about the Seven Deadly Sins...or the Golden Rule. What's your take on them?

bear

It is my firm belief...and no amount of quibbling about orgins or previous supreme court rulings...that for the government to attempt in ANY WAY SHAPE OR form to pass laws regulating religion, or the practice there of...IS A VIOLATION OF the constitution. That's it. We can argue till I'm blue in the face.

That's exactly what the applicable ammendment (exclusively) says regarding these matters.

Both are imposing religion-based practices in a government setting. The presence of the ten commandments suggests to me that the judge condones a Christian view of the law, rather than an impartial secular view of the law. As an agnostic citizen, I don't want to be held to Christian standards that have nothing to do with the law per se. I think the point about the veil was, how would you feel if someone in a position of legal authority over you who did not share your religious views imposed their own religious practices and opinions on you as a citizen?

Quote:

Nor do I see a relevance to what sect of religion it stems or what our countries form of government is based on.

It's highly relevant because many people who support religious epxressions of Christianity in civil settings would shit a brick if another religion insisted on the same privilege, and would feel persecuted if a (hypothetical) Muslim majority insisted on imposing their religious views on the rest of the populace. It's an analogy, bear: if you would object to Muslim religious practices being imposed on you, why do you defend Christian religious practices being imposed on us? The point is that our government was founded by a bunch of people who escaped state-based religious persecution and didn't want to have to go through the same thing again. Our republic was founded on religious freedom, and yes, freedom FROM religion.

Quote:

To discount as irrevlevant civil law because it's "fucked up" as you claimed is rediculous, K...it's us...here and now, and it, as was criminal law, directly influenced by the ten commandments.

Fine, if the 10 commandments influenced law, but so did a lot of other documents. They're a bunch of vague proscriptions that aren't really significant legally. Why post them if they are contentious, unless you deeply believe in their RELIGIOUS significance?

Quote:

"the government" simply wanting to ensure that public servants server the public, and not just their vision if God, is laudible. Yet how is it possible. Must you then discriminated against those who believe in God? Otherwise their vision will interfere or even influence or even worse INSPIRE their work? I think using your arguements that indeed you must. ONLY declared athiests should be allowed to work for the government...ever. Is this what you believe? Do you really believe that religion has no place in the lives of those who serve the public? Is it even possible?

It's one thing to have a Christian on the bench, another thing to have a Christian on the bench who wants to impose their RELIGIOUS views on others, rather than interpret the civil law. I don't mind having a Christian/Buddhist/Muslim/Zoroastrian/Scientologist on the bench, so long as I am confident in their ability to differentiate between their own personal views and the rule of law. It's as impossible for them to COMPLETELY divorce their interpretation of law from their personal beliefs as it would be for me to divorce my interpretation of law from mine. Nobody can be TOTALLY objective. But to post the 10 commandments is a statement that you're not interested in being objective, that you recognize your own interpretation of scripture as a higher good/higher authority than the objective (or as objective as possible) interpretation of civil law. Nobody's discriminating against those who believe in God; only those who cannot accept that their views are not privileged above the rule of law.

When one of the commandments is "thou shalt have no other gods before me" and they're talking about a Christian god, that's a little frightening to me as a non-believer. Would I be judged more harshly because I'm a heathen?

Quote:

You never answered my questions about the Seven Deadly Sins...or the Golden Rule. What's your take on them?

Can't speak for the original poster but I think the 7 deadly sins have no place in law (gluttony? sloth? please!). The golden rule didn't come from the Bible - it's a folk saying that's based on philosophy as much as religion and is found in a number of cultures. I think the golden rule would be a fine addition to many public institutions. Problem is, what makes you think it'd make any difference? What makes people think that posting the 10 commandments is anything more than preaching to the choir?

You beat me to it drawerfixer. I would add, however, that the Wiccan Rede is also a very fine set of "rules". I have to wonder what outcry would be heard from the xtian community over the display of these?

<i> "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, (letter to J. Adams April 11, 1823)

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.--Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.--Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814</i>





I don't see it.

Given the spelling error in that sentence, I see why.
Not an effective jab if no one gets it but you. It's like back in seventh grade when we all learned the swears in the language we were taking and swore at our friends in the other classes.

lurkette handled this most admirably, and I doff my cap to her.

Lumping the rest into one:
The seven deadly sins are:
Pride
Sloth
Gluttony
Rage
Envy
Lust
Greed
None of these are affected by law in the least. You are free to engage in all of these sins, and encouraged to do some of them (gluttony, greed, lust, pride) by American societal pressures. The Golden Rule, as lurkette said, is not Christian, nor religious at all, so your appropriating it for your argument is not allowed! :)
You can do your smurf impression all day, but let's get some facts in here. Here is something to read. Note this:
"Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation or endorsement of religion..." and "Yet the government plays almost no role in promoting, endorsing or funding religious institutions or religious beliefs. Free from government control -- and without government assistance..."
I'd say a Federal judge promoting the commandments would count as endorsement.

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.


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.

Anyway, I'll edit later...gotta get to l'office.

over,

bear

Forgive me for being rude but this is the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time.

1. The judge is not acting in his capacity as a private citizen, he's acting as an agent of the federal government. If a private citizen puts up a religious display, it's protected speech because it's his personal opinion, and presumably on his property. However, if an agent of the govt p

(edit) - oops, something happened while this was posting and it got cut off - could a mod please delete? thanks!

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.

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...


Fogiven.

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.

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?

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.

Why? I've got you to do it for me :) Ask questions and some of them get answered.

Don't be so angry,

bear

It's not about influencing ME, it's about the symbolic value of a religious text. It is flat out inappropriate to choose one religious text, regardless of how many peoples' religions it represents, for display in a place of law. As I've said before, it's tacit endorsement of ONE religious view by a representative of the government, which dilutes the confidence (of people who hold alternate views) in the objectivity of the person who's presiding in judgment over them.

Quote:

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?

The 10 commandments have no place in a public school. You can teach the precepts without teaching the text. If you're looking at the history of different culture's legal systems, then it would be appropriate as a text AMONG other cultural texts. The other things you cite (Hammurabi's code, the Magna Carta, the Rosetta Stone) are not religious texts, so I would have no problem with them being taught about in a public school. Kids learn about Stonehenge as a historical and archaeological "text," not as part of a Druid curriculum.

Quote:

To me the only thing out of line is the federal government getting involved.

Why on earth do you object to the federal government getting involved? I don't understand.

Quote:

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.

Um, the local court system has no jurisdiction over the state supreme court as far as I know. How do you think this got to the federal level? Someone (a citizen presumably) complained to a state court, it got appealed to the 3rd US Circuit court of appeals and appealed again to a higher court - at the FEDERAL level. That's the hierarchy of the legal system.

Quote:

Federal laws...it's always your solution, huh?

No, it's the solution in this case where all other local/state appeals have been exhausted. Why do you automatically object to an action if it's at the federal level, when that is the appropriate level for action?

Quote:

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.

It doesn't matter how many people it represents - what's important is the people it DOESN'T represent. How would you feel as a Hindu, or a Buddhist, walking into a courthouse where the 10 commandments were prominently on display?

Why is that out of the 250+ Founding Fathers that had a significant role in creating this nation, only Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison are quoted? While Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the Bible and that Christ was the saviour of man, he does go on record as saying that the Christian Principles (not any specific Church mind you) are very good and lay a foundation for leading a good, moral life. Here's a few more Founding Fathers that you can look up. Robert Aitken, publisher of the Pennsylvania Magazine which was a very pro-revolution publication, with contributors like Francis Hopkinson, the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Thomas Paine. Abraham Baldwin, considered the "Father of the Univ. of Georgia" was also a Congressman and a Senator. Richard Bassett, signer of the federal Constitution, Senator, and U.S. Circuit Judge. James Beattie (influencer of the FF, he lived in Scotland) wrote books that pleased many of the FF, and refuted the works of David Hume. Joseph Bloomfield, attorney, soldier, and public official, served as a Congressman. Elias Boudinot, studied law under Richard Stockton (a signer of the Declaration) Congressman who helped to frame the Bill of Rights. I could go on, and on and on about the many other Founding Fathers, but I don't want to make this post be one that goes on for forever. So don't just choose a few quotes out of 60+ works by Thomas Jefferson that are convenient to you, and don't just choose so few people who are convenient to you to support your case, when you have more than 12 and a half score people to choose from.

sorry to miss out on this.

anyway, you pointed out that the 10 commandments are mostly applicable to civil cases, aka cases to regulate personal behavior, aka things we should or should not do to get to heaven.

the govt has no place to tell a citizen what he/she should do with his/her own personal lives as long as it doesnt infringe upon the rights of another citizen.

yes, i say god damn it in front of my parents and they dont care. why? 1) they're not christian 2) they're polytheistic 3)they're not overly religious.

and as for whether or not i would say that in front of my kids, i have no clue. i'm far away from having one.

---------------

and federal law is above state law. the federal district court and the court of appeals have both rejected this case.

Where does it mention God in the US Constitution?

Whoops, sorry about that. The Declaration of Independence has many references to God. The Constitution does not mention God, however, you would have to rewrite history to exclude all of the Founding Fathers except Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison from the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to support the theory that the FF didn't have a great influence from the Christian religion in forming the U.S. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

gets sledge and plane ticket

Not true. Thomas Jefferson was a devoutly Christian man. He regularly attended Joseph Priestly's Pennsylvania church and remained a member of the Episcopalian congregation near his home. I've recently concluded reading a version of the Gospels compiled by Jefferson.

The wonderful thing I find about Jefferson is his belief in reason over blind faith.

"Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. ... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences." Thomas Jefferson

We were discussing this very issue in Sunday School this weekend. My minister made an interesting point. The 10 Commandments were given by God, through Moses to the Jews. We haven't heard of a single Rabbi standing up and complaining about how his religious freedoms are being trampled by the Federal government.

This is completely absurd. There is no gaurantee constitutionally on inclusion. NONE WHAT SO EVER.

The people it doesn't represent? Are you so obsessed with diversity and inclusiveness that you discount our own human history on the alter of political correctness? Incorrect, inappropriate, socially detrimental, unconstitutional political correctness?

-bear

Oh and just to clarify...I wouldn't give a hoot what was posted on the walls or illuminated under spot lights. Not one single inkling of caring in the least.

I see very little AKA cohesion in your assertions. No ones talking about heaven or hell but you. I disagree that personal behaviour shouldn't be regulated. They are, always have been and always will be. There are somethings that shouldn't be, and are, somethings that should, which aren't. Deal with it. You were mistaken in your assesment of the ten commandments applicablity to our legal system. Completed and profoundly mistaken. We've largely moved on.

Such narrow minded interpretations. It is bigger then god damn or jesus christ. Do you tell them to fuck off or to eat the peanuts out of your shit? Never mind. It doesn't matter. If you want to argue in this fashion: well this one is, but wait not like that, but like this, and that part is stupid, because this says that....you go on having fun with it. I'm not interested.

If you have difficulty seeing how the ten commandments are very applicable to our everyday lives, LEGALLY and Secularly, I'm not sure I can help.

That is not federal law. Sorry. It's interpretation of federal law, and is overturned, re-interpreted, and re-applied routinely. And federal LAW is NOT above state law. Federal Law trumps state law in circumstances ONLY where constitutionally provided OR when state law is deemed in violation of the constitution. That's it.

-bear

Your argument makes no sense.

The Bill of Rights was formed to protect the minority from the majority. It is, by it's very essence, a document based on diversity and inclusiveness.

"Political correctness" is a buzzword. It's a catch-phrase people use to turn what have always been considered human virtues into something objectionable.

You imply that diversity and inclusiveness are incorrect, inappropriate, socially detrimental and unconstitutional. It seems the alternative would be a society lacking diversity in which chosen segments would be excluded from participation in government by the ruling class.

If nothing else, doesn't our Declaration of Independance and Constitution cry out against that form of government?

I'm not talking about a guarantee on inclusion - where'd you get that from? I said that the commandments might be appropriate in a display of multiple sources, not that multiple sources should be guaranteed display.

Quote:

The people it doesn't represent? Are you so obsessed with diversity and inclusiveness that you discount our own human history on the alter of political correctness? Incorrect, inappropriate, socially detrimental, unconstitutional political correctness?

Oh, calm down. This isn't about human history (see below). It's about refusing to set one religious text, regardless of how widely it is accepted, above others; and about keeping religion separate from the practice of civil government.

In terms of inclusiveness, yes, I would like to be sure that every American, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, is included in a fair and impartial legal system. The minute you bring Christianity into it you exclude 20+% of the population (see below).

And as far as the 10 commandments representing "human history," roughly 57% of the world's population are either Christian, Muslim or Jewish. That leaves another 43% for whom the 10 commandments have nothing to do with their history.

(http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

And if we're just talking about the United States, about 78.3% consider themselves Christian, Muslim or Jewish, which leaves another 21.7% (more than 1/5 of the population, which I would consider significant) who do not.
(http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org...0Big%20Picture)

And whether it's part of our history or not, it has no place as a religious display, I'll state again, in a house of law in a secular democracy.

Quote:

Oh and just to clarify...I wouldn't give a hoot what was posted on the walls or illuminated under spot lights. Not one single inkling of caring in the least.

Well goody for you. Just because you aren't bothered doesn't mean that other people should not be, nor that we should use your personal standards as the guideline for public policy.

So...who gives a damn about all the new people in the country or its changing makeup, let's stick with what we were made from, rather than adapt?

Good thing you don't make the laws, then, because the laws aren't what's best for j8ear. They're supposed to be what's best for everyone.

j8ear, remember that talk we had about slipping into incoherency?

So, your idea wins, the end, huh? And who is this "we" who've moved on? Are you letting Mr. Wiggles in on this conversation?


See, now you're just being dimissive and rude. Stop it.

And you're a constitutional scholar, right?

For the times, Jefferson wasn't what most would call a devout Christian. He was Unitarian. By all means, he was a good guy, and I am glad we had a guy like him to help form our nation. What bear and I are saying is that the courts have all of a sudden based many decisions on something that isn't even in the Constitution. The courts are even violating the Constitution by restricting the free practices of Christianity avidly in the past 50+ years. It's not right to restrict any practice of religion unless the said religion is endangering the lives of others. Here's a few examples of the absurdity of the courts:
A prosecuting attorney mentions seven words from the Bible in a courtroom-the statement lasted less than five seconds-a jury sentence was overturned for a man convicted of brutally clubbing a 71-year-old woman to death. Commonwealth v. Chambers

In a high-school class in Dickson, Tennessee, students were required to write a research paper using at least four sources. Despite the fact that the students were allowed to write about reincarnation, witchcraft, and the occult, because student Brittney Settle chose to write her paper about the life of Jesus Christ, she was given a zero by the teacher. Britney Kay Settle v. Dickson County School Board

In Omaha, Nebraska, a student was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time, or even to open his Bible in school. Gierke v. Blotzer

I don't know about you, but doesn't this restrict the free exercise of religion?

O.K. Commonwealth v. Chambers

Settle v. Dickson County School Board

when there are cases of dual jurisdiction (like this case), fed law is above state law. the fed court wouldnt have taken this case if they didnt have jurisdiction.

hmm...i think you agreed that the commandments very mostly relevant to civil issues.

-------------

and archer, i tried searching for those cases, but couldnt come up with anything. google came up with one link for " gierke blotzer " and the site wasnt very credible and pretty much said exactly what u said word by word.

can you link me to those cases?

Again, I have to disagree. Jefferson was a devout Christian. He was the author of The Jefferson Bible - The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels. His long correspondence with John Adams is filled with religious discussion.

Also, he was not a member of the Unitarian Church.

From the Unitarian Universalist Website:
"Like many others of his time (he died just one year after the founding of institutional Unitarianism in America), Jefferson was a Unitarian in theology, though not in church membership. He never joined a Unitarian congregation: there were none near his home in Virginia during his lifetime. He regularly attended Joseph Priestley's Pennsylvania church when he was nearby, and said that Priestley's theology was his own, and there is no doubt Priestley should be identified as Unitarian. Jefferson remained a member of the Episcopal congregation near his home, but removed himself from those available to become godparents, because he was not sufficiently in agreement with the trinitarian theology."

Thomas Jefferson was a man who immersed himself in theology and religious thought. His beliefs may have not been the mainstream, but to suggest that he was not a particularly religious man just isn't true.

Thanks for clearing that up sipsake.

Things like dont kill, dont steal, dont commit adultery, honor your mother and father shouldnt threaten people. Even if you were to look at it constitutionally, the bill of rights says no establishment of religion. It didnt exclude religion from government. It said no specific religion can be established. And on a practical note, why are liberals always afraid of something as small as a bible verse or the ten commandments?
And to sipsake i say this, Jefferson was not a christian. If you read in history he was what was known as a deist. Deists believe that god created the earth but God is now indifferent and doesnt work at all today.

No one is suggesting the restriction of the free <b>practices</b> of Christianity...only the craming of it down our throats. Unless of course craming it down our throats <b>is</b> the free practice of Chritianity

I'm sorry, but you failed to provide the reason that she received a "0". Was her work sub-par? Your source (The Power Point presentation "The Judiciary: Then and Now") fails to mention it.


Yeah...I remember this from 1989. (I live in "Bible Belt" Omaha)The student was <b>not</b> sitting quietly, reading his Bible. He was causing a disruption, in the classroom, by boisterously drawing attention to himself and prosteletizing (sp). He pointed out how he was "saved" because unlike his classmates, he chose to read the Bible. The teacher confiscated it (because the kid was causing a disruption), which started a maelstrom in the press. Blah blah blah...the rest of the story.

The Christian right levels this charge at Jefferson from time to time, I think in an attempt to discredit him in some way.

In a wonderful example of "how some things never change" because his personal beliefs did not conform to those of the mainstream church (he rejected the doctrine of the trinity, and therefore rejected the notion that Jesus WAS God; he did not believe in the New Testament miracles ascribed to Jesus; he believed the Book of Revelation was the raving of a lunatic) he could not possibly be a Christian.

This is ridiculous.

Jefferson was a lifelong Christian who believed that Christ was a saviour who brought to mankind a "system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers." (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.)"

Here's another quote for you.

A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus—very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw.
TJ to Charles Thomson (9 Jan. 1816), Bergh 14:385-86.

and another...

My views of [the Christian religion] are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be—sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.
TJ to Dr. Benjamin Rush (2l Apr. l803), Bergh 10:379-80.

Now show me why you think he's a deist.

The_Dude & Bill O'Rights

Settle vs Dickson County School Board

http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/courses/eol469/cases/Settle.html

i quote from sipsake's link

lol, that's way more than enough reasons not to let the student write about the life of jesus christ.

Well, she didn't get the approval from the teacher. The teacher however could have just left it at that. She goes on to state things about how you can't mention Christ and how it's inappropriate to do so. That's what concerns me about that particular ruling. That part is a violation of the First Amendment, not the rejection of the idea of the paper. Although it is rather circumspect that the teacher allowed others to research religious matters. The teacher was also mistaken that you can only get information about Christ from the Bible. There are many books and articles about the historical significance of Christ, and I believe you can approach this topic in a research paper and do it well. As long as you can support your statements with sources. I feel that the teacher was out of line in assuming that the girl couldn't be objective without seeing her complete work. However, I'm not an appellate judge, nor am I teacher, so my opinion doesn't really matter now does it?

i dont see any relevance to the first ammendment or the constitution in the case. the teacher denied the chance to do the research in the best interest of the child.

She hadn't seen all of her work yet, how can she know the "best interest of the child" the only people that know the best interests of children are their parents (and sometimes the child). I have no problem with saying that you don't think the idea will work well, that's no biggie. The problem I have is that the teacher just said straight up that you're not supposed to be talking about God or Christ. That's just flat out wrong. There are other reasons that a teacher can give like "There probably aren't enough sources out there," or "It's hard to take an objective viewpoint on that issue," (which Ms. Ramsey said) but she could have left it at that and not pursued the "No God" position. Granted, the girl probably had no constitutional claim, if she had one, it was a very small one. This is a hard one for me, because I understand where the teacher is coming from, but I also understand where the girl is coming from. And telling someone that they shouldn't talk about Christ just because it might "offend" someone (even though the paper would have only been seen by the teacher, the student, and the student's parents), just doesn't sit well with me. Anything you say can offend someone, but people need to not take things personally so much. White supremesists offend me, yet so do black supremesists. Male supremesists offend me, yet so do female supremesists. There will be something out there that will offend someone, to try to eliminate them all is folly and irresponsible.

Oh, and about that middle of the night thing, the time was 9:30 and the delivery company was expected at 6:00 (all times PM). 9:30 hardly seems like the deep black of night to me, the sun had only set about 30-40 minutes prior.

I was trying to show the absurdities of the courts, letting a guy who beats an old lady to death off because a prosecutor quotes the Bible is irresponsible and dumb. To declare that a cross on a headstone in a cemetery "unconstitutional" is ridiculous. And quite a few other things that are just mindboggling when the courts base a decision on something that isn't even written down in the Constitution.

i'd like to point out again that the girl did NOT ask for permission to do this paper, like the other kids.

and this appears to me to be the best explanation

the kid already knew hell of a lot (couldnt help that one :D) about christianity and jesus. so, she (the kid) could easily write up the paper w/o doing much research. the purpose of the assignment was to teach the kids to do proper research and writing about something she already knew about would negate the meaning of the assigment.

Well, I read both cases you cited and neither support your claim.

The first was is quite clear.

The second one didn't overturn the juries conviction--it upheld it. The only thing the case mentions is that the original case was sent back for resentencing due to inappropriate language (from an impartial agent of the state--the prosecutor). The man was still sentenced to death, BTW. His conviction was never overturned.