-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tom DeLay: US doesn't need seperation of church and state
- Thread starter WedgeX
- Start date
- Status
ConfusingJazz
Member
Raoul Duke said:
Hey Raoul, I live in Texas, and let me give you some advice on how to deal with this argument, unless you want your head to pop, I suggest letting the argument go. Only one guy is arguing with you, and most of the board (read 99%) agrees with you, let it be man, you will be the better man for it.
Why is it being argued? I was simply arguing the same point Delay is. I know the Supreme Court has ruled one way, but we're arguing the interpretation of the 1st ammendment and it clearly says nothing about religious tolerance on a personal level for judges, nor does it limit their ability to display their beliefs.
captainbiotch
Banned
The constitution is dead in the US anyway, politicians just break it out when it serves their purpose. Besides that fact, I don't see how some fuckin 10 commandments on the wall is forcing religion down anyones throats. To me its about as harmful as a landscape painting, and I don't believe in God.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Monk said:
Are you board certified fucking retarded? Iraq is and has been a secular nation. The former govenment was a Tyranny.*
* This moment of "Do Basic Research"® was brought to you by the letter M.
olimario said:
There is already a major difference. The judge has to wear an uniform and there's an explicit restriction to have anything hanging in the courtroom that shows some form of endorsement or personal belief. The courtroom is supposed to be neutral, the whole basis why people go to court and accept a judgement is that it is fair and does not show favor.
You can not be guaranteed that a judge is truly impartial, we're all human after all, but it's more probable one is if he wears the uniform and keeps the courtroom clean of any endorsement than a judge who doesn't. It's simple as that. It's about trusting the system and the people who work in it.
Fragamemnon
Member
Tom Delay is against separation of church and state. Why is that surprising?
I'm sure he's thinking that is Jesus comes back, he SURE would make a great committee chairman. JESUS DIED FOR MY REPEATED ETHICS VIOLATIONS. I wonder if Tom Delay is thinking of gerrymandering Heaven to get that pesky liberal St. Peter out of his incumbent seat!
It's good to see a nice discussion of civics here, but come on people. It's the Bugman. More snark, please.
I'm sure he's thinking that is Jesus comes back, he SURE would make a great committee chairman. JESUS DIED FOR MY REPEATED ETHICS VIOLATIONS. I wonder if Tom Delay is thinking of gerrymandering Heaven to get that pesky liberal St. Peter out of his incumbent seat!
It's good to see a nice discussion of civics here, but come on people. It's the Bugman. More snark, please.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
give to ceasar what is ceasars, and give to god what is gods. that is all.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Monk said:If the majority agrees, where is the problem?
Fine, I am sure that if the majority of the people decides that the internet poster that has the username Monk at GA should die... well... you will be the first law biding citizen pointing a gun to your temple and obeying with the ordinance.
Democracy "can" be the least good form of government before Tiranny and the last step before Tiranny.
Monk said:And I should care because? I got my point across, accuracyu is irrelevant.
And besides your point can be argued.
But perhaps his point is correct, which means he got his point across, so why should he care?
I mean, what if we were on Mars, where there were no salad forks and people were offering you salad?
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Well, you know the more facts you get right the more that people respect what you have to say, the less you get right...well I'm debating if making you aware of this will have any positive effect.Monk said:
Monk said:I got my point across, accuracyu is irrelevant.
This part made me laugh.
Please argue away. Wait, what is your point? That is a serious question. I want to make sure we are on the same level as far as what your inital request is.Monk said:
Foreign Jackass
Member
Why was I so certain that Olimario would be in this thread, and why did I already know what he was going to say? GOD DOESN'T WANT YOU TO PLAY VIDEOGAMES, OLIMARIO! EITHER KILL YOURSELF OR QUIT PLAYING AND GOING ON GAMING FORUMS! YOU CAN EVEN SPEND YOUR WHOLE TIME SPYING ON PEOPLE AND TAKING PICTURES, AS YOUR GOD ALLOWS YOU TO.
There's seperation of church and state. That means keeping religious memorabilia off state property too. The 10 Commandments have no place in this society anyway, so I see no reason to have them on state property. Yeah, you can advocate allowing other religions that freedom, but then you'd see every conservative christian up in arms that the Condom God somehow got a statue. It's all or nothing IMO. I have no problem living by those extremes in this regard. If you're not gonna let anyone put up a statue, then no one should. Kick the 10 Commandments to the curb. The government has a restraining order on religion's ass so god-hating Americans like myself can walk out in public without having to stare at such abominations. PEACE.
AssMan said:
If you'd like to see what happens when religion and politics get into bed with each other, take quick tour of the middle east.
Pimpwerx said:
I can't vouch for the details of why "In God We Trust" appears on our currency. I'll hit Google up later. What I can tell you is that the original Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Baptist minister, and did not include "Under God." Those two words were added in the 1950s, at the height of our fear of the "Godless" Communists. The addition of "God" to our national pledge was cynical, to say the least. And in hindsight, it probably does go against the seperation of Church and state; despite the apparent neutrality of the term "God," I'm sure 100 old, white guys in 1950s Washington probably weren't thinking about Allah when they wrote the legislation.
Phoenix
Member
Celicar said:
I'm of a religious background and I'm against it. To me there is a very good and valid reason for a separation of church and state. It made sense when it was first thought up and makes even more sense now. The two should not be allowed to co-mingle and anyone who can't leave their personal faith at the door when their in public office should be banned from any position of governmental responsibility.
AssMan said:
Wow. One thing to argue whether displaying the 10 Commandments in a courthouse violates the separation of church & state, but to argue against separation itself is insanity in my humblest of opinions. I think we've proven that keeping government and religion separate is a very, very good thing.
Plus, you can't argue that U.S. law is based on the 10 commandments anyway! Which of these have laws based on them? 6, 8 and 9 (and that one only applies in court)? 30%? Those would've been law regardless of the 10 Commandments.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
AssMan said:
Hey news flash, Jews weren't part of the founding (while they had settlements in New Amsterdam, Rhode Island but around the time of the revolution they numbered no more than 2000) America was founded by Christans and their vision was one that the US would be a homogenious state with no influence from any cultures that weren't white or christian. If you want to state how the country was founed and what they meant then that's what it is. I don't think you really want to go back to the view that the Founding Fathers had on religion or anyother social issue. Freedom of religion is real easy when everyone is of the same religion.
People are still acting like the statue somehow represents a law that hold Christianity in higher regard than other religions... something that it clearly does not.
And the separation of church and state is meant so that the state isn't ruled by a religious doctrine. It's not meant to remove statues with said doctrine.
Separation of Church and state would be in full swing if people ruled according to the Bible and not according to the law. Then you would have clear infringement.
And the separation of church and state is meant so that the state isn't ruled by a religious doctrine. It's not meant to remove statues with said doctrine.
Separation of Church and state would be in full swing if people ruled according to the Bible and not according to the law. Then you would have clear infringement.
olimario said:
I trust you'd be singing a different tune if there was a giant, stone tablet to Islam in front of the courthouse. It's the implication, Oli. The implication that the judge is placing religious law over civil law in the courthouse, where the latter is the only thing that matters.
If the judge is religious, hey, whatever. But as a representative of the state, he is to leave his religious convictions at home.
Olimario said:
I'm beginning to think you're being difficult for the sake of it. Statues with "said doctrine" bought, paid for, and endorsed by a state or federal agency - or employee - for display on public land is implicit recognition of one religion, and placing it higher than another.
peedi said:
I'm going to do a pro-God rally in the street in front of your house... because I have the right to do so. As long as the state isn't being ruled by the religious doctrine then there is no issue.
KEEP THOSE ROADSIDE CROSSES HONORING THE DEAD OFF OUR MEDIANS! I DONT WANT TO SEE THAT CHRISTIAN SHIT ON MY ROADS!
xsarien said:
I wouldn't be singing another tune because I'm all for freedom of religion. As long as Islamic doctrine is not being held above the law, I'm fine with whatever statue they want to erect.
This judge was no allowed that same freedom to express. He is not infringing on the rights of others nor is the state. Freedom of religion is still intact as is separation of religious doctrine and US law.
Baseless implecation means nothing. This judge has no history of holding Christian law above US law. As a judge I'm sure he knows which doctrine he is supposed to rule in accordance with.
videogamer
Banned
Hasn't someone already gone over this for you? It's your right to perform the "pro-God" rally. However, if the government does it, it's a different matter.olimario said:
This debate is going in circles. I'll regurgitate what someone else probably already said: it's not just about the law, but the (implicit) establishment of religion.
olimario said:
As a judge, he should also know that it's grossly inappropriate to put any religious symbol in front of courthouse. The implication is there, I don't care what you personally know; the implication to a defendant going in - say an athiest or a Buddhist - that the court will look down on them because they're not of Judeo-Christian faith.
The contitution says nothing of implecation, only law. You can not deny that.
And like I said once before, what if it's well established that the judge is a practicing Christian? The implecation is still there. Should he not be allowed to rule because he has faith and it is well known?
And I agree that I don't want religious doctrine to find its way into US law. Separation of chruch and state is a good thing.
And like I said once before, what if it's well established that the judge is a practicing Christian? The implecation is still there. Should he not be allowed to rule because he has faith and it is well known?
And I agree that I don't want religious doctrine to find its way into US law. Separation of chruch and state is a good thing.
Phoenix
Member
xsarien said:
That's an incredibly reaching argument. Inappropriate that it should be at the statehouse - yes, but if the judge is a practicing Judeo-Christian then you're in the same boat. Removing a statue doesn't change the nature of a person's heart. The two are completely unrelated.
videogamer
Banned
No one denies that. However, Delay argues agains separation of church and state, not just implications. Do you seriously believe that Delay will stop with a stone tablet if he had the power?olimario said:
Sure he can "rule", but what he should not do is suggest that he is biased and prefers one religion over another. It's a little thing called professionalism (in addition to um certain other things).
- Status