Support NeoGAF

[OmniGamer]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html

 

[teh_pwn]

About damn time.

 

[DarienA]

Considering there are alot worse examples of the lack of separation between church and state right in this past election I find this... pitiful.

 

[MrPing1000]

now for this new censorship thingy

 

[heavenly]

Anybody see the debate on MSNBC about this? It was between a Catholic priest and a law professor, I think? Quite interesting.

In short, the priest stated that it's not establishing a particular religion but honoring historic roots. Contrarily, the professor disagreed and said that it alienates non-christians and unbelievers.

But, here's the sticky point. The professor said that commandments 5-10 are generic and that those laws are generally reflected in most religions today. However, when you begin to legislate commandments 1 - 4, then you have a problem. That is why she said that the commandments shouldn't be displayed.

I don't understand why they always have a priest to represent Protestant beliefs. The RCC has their own set of 10 Commandments. Also, he mentioned that the US has always had Blue Laws (Sunday worshipping) on books which honored the Sabbath. What the priest fails to realize is that the 4th commandment specifically states the 7th day, not the 1st. So, I find it hypocritical for him to even mentioned that.

IMO, US needs to legislate the last 6 commandments are else, we have anarchy. But, when you legislate the first 4, then you begin to establish a state religion, which will lead to a religio-political system...and ultimately, the end times. That's why I believe the commandments were written on two tablets.

 

[Pellham]

What the priest fails to realize is that the 4th commandment specifically states the 4th day

You mean the 7th day.

 

[DarienA]

Following ruling barring Ten Commandments displays in courthouses, Supreme Court rules such displays are allowed at state capitols.

WTF?

EDIT:

Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays -- like their own courtroom frieze -- would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

Funny ruling.

 

[Baconäger]

But don't they still say "God" when swearing you in!? Don't force your beliefs down my throat, maaaaan!

 

[heavenly]

You mean the 7th day.

Correction made, thanks.

 

[whytemyke]

Heavenly-- There's no need to legislate any of these commandments, or at least no need to base legislation off of them. You create legislation based on common good, not on 'holy tablets'. Countless civillizations throughout the history of the world have always thought that 'murder' is a bad idea. That's fine and it's generally accepted by all of us, as well all don't like the thought of being killed. We want to live, and that's fine. So you legislate based on the fact that everyone, in general, likes to be alive. You don't legislate because of the commandments. The moment you create any legislation based on those commandments is the moment you turn from a democracy into a theocracy, and as discontent as I am with American democracy, I'm outright scared at the idea of an American theocracy.

 

[AssMan]

"But, here's the sticky point. The professor said that commandments 5-10 are generic and that those laws are generally reflected in most religions today"


Doesn't most of the religous laws on the ten commandment reflect how our law system work? "Thou shall not steal,"and etc.?

 

[Jonnyboy117]

Expect this whole debate to start anew next year when Roy Moore runs for Governor of Alabama. Heaven help us if he wins.

 

[karasu]

Weird. The rulings of these judges will still be influenced by their religious beliefs.

 

[Nerevar]

Doesn't most of the religous laws on the ten commandment reflect how our law system work? "Thou shall not steal,"and etc.?

yeah, the problem is those ones that say things such as "thou shalt honor no other God but me", etc. Those tend to be the ones that non-Christians get upset about.

 

[Phoenix]

But don't they still say "God" when swearing you in!? Don't force your beliefs down my throat, maaaaan!

That's not a requirement - not even for swearing in of the president of the US.

 

[AssMan]

I hope O Reilly or Hannity talks about this. Should be a good laugh, but since they're covering that big nose woman lost in Aruba, I doubt it.

 

[teh_pwn]

Doesn't most of the religous laws on the ten commandment reflect how our law system work? "Thou shall not steal,"and etc.?

As mentioned already, the ones that are true are needlessly redundant, and the religious ones cross the Church/State line.

Christian Reconstructionists will have you believe that our law system is based on the Ten Commandments. However, this is not true. Our law system is clearly based on English law. England's law system was influenced by several factors. One is Rome, as London was a Roman settlement. Rome established its laws before Christianity. Another is Anglo-Saxons. They were not christians. And there's the Celts...again not christians.

I'm not saying that Christianity didn't have any influence or that there was no Christian culture in the revolutionary days, but it was by no means a large influence.

 

[ronito]

Oh great....now I'm going to have to hear about the "American war against christians" again.

Now I'm going to have to explain to my fellow christians what it would be like if suddenly the government put, or even allowed for people put Korans and statues of Mohammad in the court houses, and see how they feel. And how God doesn't really live in a courthouse or a statue. And that separation of church and state is there to protect them not to hurt them.

And I'm also going to have to explain to my non-christian friends that not all christians are against separation of church and state. This will be a fine week...sigh....

 

[Jonk]

It doesnt matter if the 10 commandments are religous or not, they are the basis of a sound society which is pretty much how civilization came about. In every society that arose from around the world, they had very similar rules, its a common conclusion among mankind.

Because religion was integrated in society that is why they are looked at as religous. They have meaning because they apply to our humanity, not just spiritual nature.

People who protest this just don't want to be preached to with a set of rules which is ethically sound for a common human to strive to be better to themselves and their fellow man & is to be a legitimate member of society. It sounds like some just don't want responsibilty for their actions or be told what they can or can't do and find excuse through the founding of these rules- that they are religous in origin.

Every basic law is relious in origin.

 

[teh_pwn]

*sigh*

Another religious nut that thinks morals are exclusive to religion and the ten commandments led to the beginning of civilization.

I just have to keep reminding myself that most Christians are like ronito.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Jonk-- that's one heackuva leap to make, from not wanting the commandments displayed on government propert to not wanting individual responsibility. I don't buy it.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

It doesnt matter if the 10 commandments are religous or not, they are the basis of a sound society which is pretty much how civilization came about. In every society that arose from around the world, they had very similar rules, its a common conclusion among mankind.

Because religion was integrated in society that is why they are looked at as religous. They have meaning because they apply to our humanity, not just spiritual nature.

People who protest this just don't want to be preached to with a set of rules which is ethically sound for a common human to strive to be better to themselves and their fellow man & is to be a legitimate member of society. It sounds like some just don't want responsibilty for their actions or be told what they can or can't do and find excuse through the founding of these rules- that they are religous in origin.

Every basic law is relious in origin.

By that reasoning there should be a stele of Hammurabi's Code of Laws on every courthouse. It's the first set of formal laws to ever be codified, and they were what many civilizations based their statutes on.

 

[shpankey]

sickening. this country was founded with those beliefs. liberals are so hypocritical, they want freedom from everything and to do anything, except when it comes to God. any rational man knows God exists... just look up and ponder the stars long enough and you will realize there is a Creator. how can something be created from nothing? how can absolute nothingness 'bang' into to all that is? it's impossible. you must have something to bang into... thus, you will always go back to a Creator.... God.

 

[ronito]

sickening. this country was founded with those beliefs. liberals are so hypocritical, they want freedom from everything and to do anything, except when it comes to God. any rational man knows God exists... just look up and ponder the stars long enough and you will realize there is a Creator. how can nothing be created from nothing? it's impossible.

Oh you've done it now....

 

[explodet]

Just an aside.... how exactly is one supposed to legistlate "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods"?

 

[shpankey]

who's talking about legislating them? but on that note, this is legislation to stop from simply displaying the 10 commandments. not legislating them.

which goes to my point... you want freedom of expression, freedom of speech... but then you don't want it when it comes to anything related to God.

anyways, i don't feel like staying in this thread as I know the board is mostly liberal... i've always stayed out of them in the past and plan to keep doing so after this. i was more upset at the other thread with people wanting to kill my Lord, Jesus. ::vomits:: but said nothing cause that is their choice. this thread seemed so hypocritical i couldn't resist.

and why on earth is everyone jumping to 'legislating the 10 commandments'. none of that was going on... they were just talking about being able to display them.

carry on.

 

[border]

any rational man knows God exists... just look up and ponder the stars long enough and you will realize there is a Creator. how can something be created from nothing? how can absolute nothingness 'bang' into to all that is? it's impossible. you must have something to bang into... thus, you will always go back to a Creator.... God.

Annnnnnnddddddddd.....welcome to Church Youth Group Philosophy 101. :lol :lol

 

[Hitokage]

who's talking about legislating them? but on that note, this is legislation to stop from simply displaying the 10 commandments. not legislating them.

which goes to my point... you want freedom of expression, freedom of speech... but then you don't want it when it comes to anything related to God.

anyways, i don't feel like staying in this thread as I know the board is mostly liberal... i've always stayed out of them in the past and plan to keep doing so after this. i was more upset at the other thread with people wanting to kill my Lord, Jesus. ::vomits:: but said nothing cause that is their choice. this thread seemed so hypocritical i couldn't resist.

and why on earth is everyone jumping to 'legislating the 10 commandments'. none of that was going on... they were just talking about being able to display them.

carry on.

The STATE has no freedom of speech. Get over it. It doesn't need it. It is CITIZENS who have freedom of speech along with freedom of religion, which is what the STATE is supposed to respect by staying neutral to all religions.

And America was founded primarily on the Enlightenment, contrary to what US History and Civics flunkees would tell you.

 

[shpankey]

i don't go to Church, and have rarely ever have... a couple times when i was young, but we skipped it and went to Arby's and around town, till it was time for the bus to take us back.

i merely read myself and come to my own conclusions. any logical person would come to the same conclusion. if you have 100% pure and absolute NOTHING... what is there to 'bang'? it's not even a difficult thing to think about. what created the elements that caused the bang?

ok, now i'm out for real. haha :lol got to study for French class.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

shpanky-- try for a minute to see the opposite point of view, that doesn't involve religion-bashing. What message does it send to a Muslim, or atheist, to have these displayed? What benefit does having them displayed give, that could not be achieved by a secular display?

 

[border]

any logical person would come to the same conclusion.

I think this sort of arrogance combined with your ignorance about alternative theories of the universe will probably upset people. Me? I'm not going to waste time on it, though it's probably worth noting that at best you have formulated a very short sighted justification of a Creator or Creators that may or may not still exist -- not a single God, and certainly not the Christian god.

 

[whytemyke]

who's talking about legislating them? but on that note, this is legislation to stop from simply displaying the 10 commandments. not legislating them.

which goes to my point... you want freedom of expression, freedom of speech... but then you don't want it when it comes to anything related to God.

anyways, i don't feel like staying in this thread as I know the board is mostly liberal... i've always stayed out of them in the past and plan to keep doing so after this. i was more upset at the other thread with people wanting to kill my Lord, Jesus. ::vomits:: but said nothing cause that is their choice. this thread seemed so hypocritical i couldn't resist.

and why on earth is everyone jumping to 'legislating the 10 commandments'. none of that was going on... they were just talking about being able to display them.

carry on.

Wow. Someone should ban this fool. Seriously... picking a fight like this then running off because he doesn't wanna debate his opinion? If you weren't interested in sticking around to debate because of the liberal slant of this board, shpankey, you should have kept your fucking mouth shut.

Now comes the problem. When you look at it and say that you want to display the 10 commandments, its fine for you and the rest of the majority. But america isn't about the majority. America is about the rule of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority. While the minority may be only 10% of the people in this country who are really, truly bothered by those 10 Commandments, it still sets a precedent against that 10%, thus negating any job that the majority is doing to protect the rights of the minority. You want freedom of speech? it's easy to bitch about that when you're in the majority, talking about how this country and its liberals are ruining your rights. But you want freedom?

Well... you know what you just did? Say your opinion and leave because you felt uncomfortable speaking it? There are people who have to do that everytime they go to a federal building and see nomenclature and icons nonrelated to their religion, and they shouldn't have to feel that way in a federal situation. It is your job as the majority to make sure that they don't have to feel that way as the minority. THAT is what makes America great... the fact it respects those who dissent and are different.

And as far as the debate about legislating, it was just in contradiction to an idea that Heavenly threw into the ring for debate. But at least Heavenly stuck around to talk about it... he didn't just throw it in and run like a scared little punk ass bitch, which you appear to be.

 

[ronito]

Oh you've done it now....

Wow. Someone should ban this fool. Seriously... picking a fight like this then running off because he doesn't wanna debate his opinion? If you weren't interested in sticking around to debate because of the liberal slant of this board, shpankey, you should have kept your fucking mouth shut.

Now comes the problem. When you look at it and say that you want to display the 10 commandments, its fine for you and the rest of the majority. But america isn't about the majority. America is about the rule of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority. While the minority may be only 10% of the people in this country who are really, truly bothered by those 10 Commandments, it still sets a precedent against that 10%, thus negating any job that the majority is doing to protect the rights of the minority. You want freedom of speech? it's easy to bitch about that when you're in the majority, talking about how this country and its liberals are ruining your rights. But you want freedom?

Well... you know what you just did? Say your opinion and leave because you felt uncomfortable speaking it? There are people who have to do that everytime they go to a federal building and see nomenclature and icons nonrelated to their religion, and they shouldn't have to feel that way in a federal situation. It is your job as the majority to make sure that they don't have to feel that way as the minority. THAT is what makes America great... the fact it respects those who dissent and are different.

And as far as the debate about legislating, it was just in contradiction to an idea that Heavenly threw into the ring for debate. But at least Heavenly stuck around to talk about it... he didn't just throw it in and run like a scared little punk ass bitch, which you appear to be.

See? I told you you did it...

 

[Nerevar]

sickening. this country was founded with those beliefs.

Wow, and your argument falls apart before it's even started. American law is based on the English common law system (well, every state but Louisiana, which has a civic legal system based off of it's French origins - but we can discuss that at another time). English common law is derived from traditions that date back to pre-Romanic (i.e. pre-Christian) times. Anyone with a basic understanding of legal systems would know this. Apparently, shpankey is just another idiot in the echo chamber who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Shock.

 

[OmniGamer]

God exists.

how can something be created from nothing?

Thank you for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you.

 

[Jonk]

not a religous nut, an ethical one.

If you dont understand why and where of what you believe the how can you legitmately believe and practice who you are as an individual. It's not forcing religion, its understanding history and its origins and having respect for it.

 

[teh_pwn]

sickening. this country was founded with those beliefs. liberals are so hypocritical, they want freedom from everything and to do anything, except when it comes to God. any rational man knows God exists... just look up and ponder the stars long enough and you will realize there is a Creator. how can something be created from nothing? how can absolute nothingness 'bang' into to all that is? it's impossible. you must have something to bang into... thus, you will always go back to a Creator.... God.

If anything, the Found Fathers were liberals for their time. They were largely Deists, not Christians.

But then again, please enlighten me. Give me good sources saying otherwise, that the Founding fathers were conservative christians and whatnot.

Where the hell does it say worship the Christian god above all others in our law system?

How can something be created from nothing? Tell me, what created God? Oh..wait let me guess he was always there wasn't he? Just magically huh? Kind of like how non-religious people see the Universe as something that's always existed (the Big Bang is a theory and doesn't mean it is an absolute starting point).

 

[demon]

not a religous nut, an ethical one.

If you dont understand why and where of what you believe the how can you legitmately believe and practice who you are as an individual. It's not forcing religion, its understanding history and its origins and having respect for it.

The ten commandments are not the fucking origin of our law! Get over it. And REGARDLESS of whether or not they are indirectly the origin of our law (because directly, they are not, as has already been explained), it doesn't violate free speech in any way, shape or form, as Hitokage already explained, because a courthouse is government property, not private property.

This has been linked to here before (in fact I got the link from this board), but go here if you're interested in our Founding Fathers' thoughts and feelings on christianity in general:
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

You people will come up with every lie and distortion of our history to somehow justify the Christianization of our government and law, and it's sickening. Just stop.

sickening. this country was founded with those beliefs. liberals are so hypocritical, they want freedom from everything and to do anything, except when it comes to God. any rational man knows God exists... just look up and ponder the stars long enough and you will realize there is a Creator. how can something be created from nothing? how can absolute nothingness 'bang' into to all that is? it's impossible. you must have something to bang into... thus, you will always go back to a Creator.... God.

Typical Christian debate method.....when you can't come up with a sound, logical argument, remind everyone of how only a god could've created the universe! Bravo... *slow, sarcastic applause*

"How am I being persecuted as a Christian? How am I being persectuted?! Well....uhhh............just look up at the stars..."

 

[teh_pwn]

I love it how they believe the Found Fathers were part of the religious right.

Isn't Thomas Jefferson considering the father of the Democratic party ( the modern party as in ideals, I realize it did not exist then)?

 

[AssMan]

" English common law is derived from traditions that date back to pre-Romanic"


I knew that, but was it possible that the Roman's law system based on any type of religion?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I don't think the majority of the founding fathers were Deists, although Jefferson and Washington likely were. They were probably predominatly Christian. However, they were also products of the Age of Reason, thinking which would be considered pretty liberal today-- or perhaps libertarian.

 

[ronito]

I don't think the majority of the founding fathers were Deists, although Jefferson and Washington likely were. They were probably predominatly Christian. However, they were also products of the Age of Reason, thinking which would be considered pretty liberal today-- or perhaps libertarian.

True dat. If the founding fathers were alive today they'd be branded as "Godless, unamerican liberals".

 

[bob_arctor]

sickening. this country was founded with those beliefs. liberals are so hypocritical, they want freedom from everything and to do anything, except when it comes to God. any rational man knows God exists... just look up and ponder the stars long enough and you will realize there is a Creator. how can something be created from nothing? how can absolute nothingness 'bang' into to all that is? it's impossible. you must have something to bang into... thus, you will always go back to a Creator.... God.

This has to be a joke. Has to be.

 

[Jeffahn]

The 10 commandments are incomplete anyway. It's a little known fact that Moses accidently dropped the third tablet containing commandments 11 through 15. Scholars have speculated as to what the commandments are/were but nothing conclusive has come of it.

...

 

[bob_arctor]

People who protest this just don't want to be preached to with a set of rules which is ethically sound for a common human to strive to be better to themselves and their fellow man & is to be a legitimate member of society. It sounds like some just don't want responsibilty for their actions or be told what they can or can't do and find excuse through the founding of these rules- that they are religous in origin.

My feeling is that other than the Church/State issue, I think people don't want to be preached to with a set of rules that any person with a shred of common sense would inherently know, religious freak or not.

 

[demon]

I don't think the majority of the founding fathers were Deists, although Jefferson and Washington likely were. They were probably predominatly Christian. However, they were also products of the Age of Reason, thinking which would be considered pretty liberal today-- or perhaps libertarian.

Who are you including as all of the "founding fathers"? Pretty much all the major ones were deists, I think.

 

[ManDudeChild]

I hope O Reilly or Hannity talks about this. Should be a good laugh, but since they're covering that big nose woman lost in Aruba, I doubt it.

Does anyone know why that Aruba crap is getting so much attention? I mean is it that she's an American? News outlets have nothing better to do? Seriously, what's up with this crap?

 

[bob_arctor]

Does anyone know why that Aruba crap is getting so much attention? I mean is it that she's an American? News outlets have nothing better to do? Seriously, what's up with this crap?

She's white and blond. Instant news coverage.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Who are you including as all of the "founding fathers"? Pretty much all the major ones were deists, I think.

I'm talking signers of the Declaration and member of the Constitutional Congress. Hvaing done some reading, I haven't found most of them to be deists. Some, like Thomas Paine, advocated for a Christian theocracy.

 

[Dan]

I'm talking signers of the Declaration and member of the Constitutional Congress. Hvaing done some reading, I haven't found most of them to be deists. Some, like Thomas Paine, advocated for a Christian theocracy.

What? Thomas Paine was a deist and a writer. He completely ripped apart organized religion in his final work, The Age of Reason. He didn't sign the Declaration nor was he a member of the Constitutional Congress.