 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
MtG - quote:
Read the first amendment. Even more, some Christian groups would consider the monument to be a graven image, in violation of the commandments themselves. |
Yup.
quote:
What part of "no law" don't you understand. |
What law was passed?
Albert - quote:
but most of the others such as coveting your neighbour's possessions, etc. can translate to actual crimes if acted upon... the commandments serve as a guide so that if you follow them, you won't find yourself guilty of some crime in the courtroom |
Yes, but we don't convict people of coveting, just stealing. Like I said, most of the commandmants aren't even a legal basis for our system or even the system of the Founders. In fact, I'd argue the first (or first 2) are in direct contradiction of our legal code. Thou shall have no other God before me...
Asher -
Diplomat is right, there are times when the only moral avenue is to resist the law and I'm sure we can think of quite a few examples. The Underground Railroad, the Nazis, Solsinitzin in the USSR, Iraqis fighting Saddam, etc...
Btw, I believe Moore paid for this himself, not the taxpayers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
IIRC, the Supreme Court is the highest order of the Man once a law or action's constitutionality is challenged...this would mean the government would have to do what they say, right?
No. There's precedent for disregarding justice; Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's decision and forced the relocation of the Cherokee anyways. However, it would be very neat to see federal troops come in and remove that jackass's ****ing monument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:30
|
|
The judge erected the monument, covertly, and without the knowledge of his other justices. It stands within the footprint of the courthouse, so is presumably within the precincts of a federal building. Lawyers have to walk past it to get into the courthouse.
Is it a legal text or a religious, sacred text?
'That question was put to rest by the nation's highest court in a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that found the Ten Commandments is "undeniably a sacred text." Therefore, the court ruled, posting it on public buildings violates the separation of church and state.'
Proponents describe the Commandments as an important but benign acknowledgement of the origins of universal law. But a close reading suggests they're largely concerned with religion:
• The First Commandment to most Christians — and the Second to Jews — is "thou shalt have no other God before me," a religious doctrine subscribed to by many Americans, but certainly not all.
• More than half of the Commandments' biblical text is about religious observance: no idolatry, no misuse of the Lord's name and no work on the Sabbath, for example.
http://www.usatoday.com/advertising...bitz-window.htm
'Inscribed across the top of the monument is the King James translation of the commandments. The court’s opinion took special note that different religious traditions—including different traditions within Christianity itself—have different ways of translating and arranging the Exodus passages from which the commandments are drawn. Therefore, the court said, it was difficult to view the sculpture as anything but an endorsement of Protestant Christianity.'
http://www.westernrecorder.org/wr/w...200327-monument
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Does that mean it's legal, mrmitchell? |
Wha? I'm all for taking the fool's monument down. It's disrespectful to the Courts to act like that (how he is), and even if he doesn't agree with the Supreme decision, he should still take it down.
It's like voicing your dislike of a leader. You've got to go by certain guidelines. Demonstrations, written material, etc. are okay. Walking up to him and saying "You suck" is disrespecting the leader. Even if you don't like him, he (usually) is still a human being that deserves a little respect. Likewise, in this case, the Alabama judge has used all his options and failed, so he should get the thing out of there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Hes the elected chief justice of the Alabama supreme court. |
In addition to the general populace at large, courts are meant to protect the minority of a region.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
I'll explain it for the special students. It means his opinions on this matter are probably held by 80-85% of the people of Alabama. |
Remember...part of the big reason why foreigners (some of them) say "I want to go to America and become a fat lazy capitalist pig" is because we have rules to protect our minorities...and not just racial minorities. Minorities by creed, gender, race, ethnic group, whatever, should be equal citizens in the eyes of the law. If the law (the judge in this case pretty much equals the law, if you want me to simplify like that) endorses even a majority group, it distorts the law's vision, or opens up the possibility for this.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-08-2003 06:05
What's worse is that many people support him. 
Thomas Jefferson would be appalled at this violation of the 1st Amendment. Jefferson's ue of "Creator" instead of "God" is a reflection of him as a deist and that all religions have a creation myth, so for the Ancient Greeks that would be the titan Prometheus. There were no large groups of athiests untill the Start of Marxism, So the use of the term "creator" should not bo taken so hard. In this day and age it is a whole different story; And people who know my low opinion of creationists know that I am LAUGHING at Diplomat right now. 
|