Supreme Court Ruling on Restraining Order & Ten Commandments
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Supreme Court Ruling on Restraining Order & Ten Commandments |
|---|---|
|
Apprentice
Member # 5881
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 13:50
Profile
All opinions are welcome as long as no discrimination of religious ideals are hostile. I promote an understanding of culture differences. Example of hostily: Hatred/anger/dislike toward a muslim(other religions: wiccan/pagan/christian/catholic/etc) for being a certain race or about their religion. The U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the restraining order is an outrage. People who go out to get one are suppose to be guaranteed protection. If the protection is not enacted, then we should be allowed to sue or have some other form of sympathies for the order being broken. The Ten Commandments ruling is definitely not appropriate in my opinion. If a person doesn't like the Commandments, then they should not look at it. If a county or person wants the commandments displayed in the courthouse, then they should hold a local/state poll. If the majority says "Yes" to displaying the commandments, then it should be displayed. If no, then the people should respect the majority. What is your opinion on the issue(s)? By the way, do I sound like I should run for a political office since I have some interesting ideas that could benefit the little people? Posts: 21 | Registered: Friday, June 3 2005 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2238
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 14:10
Profile
Homepage
Well the poll idea would certainly work, if it weren't for the fact that I'm surrounded by people will dissimilar beliefs. Being atheist, I certainly don't hold the Ten Commandments to any... higher order, other than simply morals of my community that I should try to keep to. However, I'm not at all offended by people openly expressing their beliefs. I think it's just dandy. But the second you try to tell me I'm wrong about what I believe, you're getting hell. And not the afterlife kind. Oh, and no. -------------------- The critics agree! Demonslayer is "a five star hit!" raves TIMES Weekly! "I've never heard such thoughtful comments. This man is a genious!" says two-time Nobel Prize winning physicist Erwin Rasputin! Posts: 1582 | Registered: Wednesday, November 13 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 14:16
Profile
Homepage
I'm agnostic, and the Ten Commandments, to me, hold no more authority than any list of principles I could write up myself (or consult on in a group of like-minded people) could, possibly less. If a legal system that is supposed to protect my rights appears to arbitrarily show (and thus implicitly demand) respect for a system of morals that neither I nor the country's constitution endorse, I feel oppressed and threatened. The majority does not have the right to push its views on the minority. There are several well-known incidents in history of dictators getting popularly elected and proceeding to oppress and kill minorities. This must not be repeated. I have no experience or knowledge of restraining orders (and I do not know what decision you refer to), so I'll keep silent on that. Oh, and no. Hell no. [ Monday, June 27, 2005 14:19: Message edited by: Vote Arancaytar ] -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 15:29
Profile
Homepage
There's always a better way to back up any moral belief in ways other than citing a bible. Unless, of course, "sending a nation on a one-way course to the bosom of the Christian Taliban and not being afraid to admit it in an obnoxious and offensive manner" is a moral. (HINT: It isn't.) But what gets me is the fact that supporters of that sort of nonsense think that thee protesters are being militant- but why not? The fundamentalists are only promoting a state religion... I wonder how much of jingoistic circle-jerking will be just enough? EDIT: Wait a second... Scorpius, is that you? [ Monday, June 27, 2005 15:30: Message edited by: Marx' Martyr ] -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 17:35
Profile
Homepage
Well, some people are so eager to take all religion out of government, and it's just not good. They declare to be promoting freedom of religion, yet they press to prevent Christians from displaying a part of their religion. Freedom of religion does not mean removal of religion. Especially since Christianity in the dominant religion in the United States. As soon as we take God out of the country, that'll be our downfall. It's happened every time. And it's actually a good sign that the endtimes are near. Not only that, but the Ten Commandments are part of our cultural history. The United States has always embraced Christianity as a religion while still allowing other religions to exist freely. Until now. I know this may seem very opinionated, and really, it is. Of course, all opinions were welcome. But just think about that. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5523
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 17:39
Profile
Displaying your beliefs is fine, but it dosn't belong in government building. -------------------- “Medicine, Law, Business, Engineering - These are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But Poetry, Beauty, Romance, Love-These are what we alive stay for.” Posts: 150 | Registered: Sunday, February 20 2005 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 17:47
Profile
Homepage
Well, there's still quite a few cultural religion expressions that are much "worse" that displaying the Commandments in a government building, such as having court witnesses swear to tell the truth by the Bible and the Pledge of Allegiance and even the Presidential Inauguration. Are those next to go? [ Monday, June 27, 2005 17:47: Message edited by: ben III ] -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3898
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 18:01
Profile
Well, what if said court witnesses are atheistic or of a non-christian religon and find swearing by the bible to be neither binding nor particularly tasteful when they could swear by their own holy documents or belief system. I would think a better version would be simply an oath to tell the truth. -------------------- ~Note : The professional newbie's advice should not be taken seriously, or at all.~ LINKAGE Posts: 364 | Registered: Saturday, January 17 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 18:04
Profile
Homepage
quote:Did you know that federal employees are banned from displaying partisan tendencies in the workplace to the point where wearing pins supporting one party's candidate is grounds for disciplinary action and possibly termination? I feel much the same way about religion. What you believe is your own business, but where the state is represented, religion must not be present and must not appear to be present. quote:How many times has it happened? This is not a rhetorical question. I want to see examples. Keep in mind that many founding fathers were deists, not Christians. That didn't seem to damn the birth of the United States. quote:[/b] Argumentum ad antiquitatem is a logical fallacy, my friend. Tradition does not make right. Slavery has also been part of our cultural history, as have oppression of immigrants and the betrayal and murder of Native Americans. I don't think we have a sterling record in the cultural department. [Edit: The "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a Cold War addition to show how different we were from the godless commies, and swearing with "so help me God" is not in the Constitution. In fact, historically several people, notably Quakers, have been permitted to refrain from swearing an oath at all. An "affirmation" that one will uphold one's duties in office is all that is mandated. So if anything, religion and God are metastasizing in American society.] —Alorael, who can think of many documents far more important to the culture of American law than the Ten Commandments. The Bill of Rights, for one. Maybe then people would notice that pesky First Amendment. [ Monday, June 27, 2005 18:09: Message edited by: A punchline in the gut ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 18:18
Profile
Homepage
Religion has no place in schools or government. The pledge of allegiance is just as stupid. The bible is no more important than any other religious document and thus should not be overly represented. Religion practiced at the bureaucratic level only leads to trouble. I suppose the end times are near as God has deemed the US his envoy of destruction. Oh no wait that's only some US people interpreting themselves as being saviours of the weak. But really its only the weak that are destroyed. The whole court swearing on a bible is just a relic one can affirm the truth in many other ways. Does one have to swear on the bible in the U.S.? [ Monday, June 27, 2005 18:20: Message edited by: VCH ] -------------------- I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week. CANUCKS RESPEK! My Style The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 18:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:Nope. One can choose to take a non-religious affirmation. I'm not sure whether one can swear on another religious text instead; I think one can. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 18:53
Profile
Church and state should always remain separate. Just as we should have the freedom to fallow the faith (or not) of our choice, we should also have the freedom to not have the religion of others forced upon us. Just because Christianity is the dominant faith does not make it the "correct" faith, and it is only the dominant faith due to forcing other cultures to convert. Defiantly no Edit: ? [ Monday, June 27, 2005 20:28: Message edited by: Dolphin. ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 19:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:YES. What part of "separation of church and state" do you somehow fail to understand? -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 21:06
Profile
Homepage
There is one condition under which I'd be silent on a courthouse with the Ten Commandments (and "silent" as in "barely tolerate"). If there was another functional courthouse that did not sport such emblems, and that any person involved in the court proceedings could request the process be conducted there. That, of course, is exceedingly un-economic, so on the whole we're all somewhat better off without the emblems. People can bring their own Bible/Koran/Torah/etc. if they want. Not private persons are being stripped of their religion - the state is. The state is no person, and as such does not have the right to practice a religion. I suppose I won't protest if the judge is a practicing Christian, but while in the official position of representing justice, he/she is not, technically, a person, but an institution, and therefore can't practice either, nor let it influence his/her decision. -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 22:55
Profile
According to the BBC website, the Supreme Court ordered that a court in Kentucky should remove the Ten Commandments but allowed a monument to them to be retained in Texas. I can certainly see that there's a lack of clarity. The majority religion makes no difference. It is not the only religion and has no implicit right to preferential treatment and if you believe that the state cannot run without religion, you're welcome to hold that view, but it doesn't make you any less of a nutter. Besides, why should the Ten Commandments be displayed in a courtroom? Last I checked American law worked on the basis of statute and precedent, not on the basis of some stone tablets allegedly brought down from a mountain in the Sinai desert to a bunch of bull-worshipping nomads. Having the Commandments on display is a waste of time any money and certainly a much finer example of unnecessary government spending than the usual things the right likes to attack. -------------------- Voice of Reasonable Morality Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 23:21
Profile
Homepage
quote:How many times has it happened? This is not a rhetorical question. I want to see examples. Keep in mind that many founding fathers were deists, not Christians. That didn't seem to damn the birth of the United States.[/b][/quote]The Roman Empire is the most obvious one. As soon as they stopped worshipping their traditional gods, their empire began to fall apart. Of course, they converted to Christianity, and that didn't seem to help them... :P In all seriousness, I think I like this ruling. It says that having the Ten Commandments in a government building is not a violation in itself, but having them present in a way that constitutes an endorsement of a particular religion is, and one such display did. That seems reasonable to me. Moreover, I'm in favor of the Pledge of Allegiance in its traditional form before people started screwing with it. You know, before they inserted "under God" in the 1950's. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 23:30
Profile
Homepage
Why the heck does America have a Pledge of Allegiance, anyway? What's it for? -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Monday, June 27 2005 23:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:It generates a feeling of national unity. You know, like raising your right arm in the air, etc. Heil. Very useful for fighting wars, as well as for entrenching totalitarianism without pesky protests. -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, June 28 2005 00:01
Profile
Homepage
Well, it was written by a commie. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Tuesday, June 28 2005 02:39
Profile
Homepage
A sense of national unity is not a bad thing. And personally, I find the Nazi comparison offensive. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Tuesday, June 28 2005 03:51
Profile
Forgive him, Drakey. With us, feelings of national unity are uncomfortably closely touching a taboo. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2245
|
written Tuesday, June 28 2005 04:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:I might just run naked down the street. If the people don't like my naked body, they should not look at it. The fact is that these commandments are being THRUST in the American peoples' faces. I see nothing wrong with displaying such things on private property (eg. near church), but displaying it in a GOVERNMENT BUILDING violates separation of church and state. How would you feel if a section of the Koran was displayed in a court house? Or what about the Wiccan creed? Posts: 522 | Registered: Friday, November 15 2002 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Tuesday, June 28 2005 04:20
Profile
quote:I would agree. As Aran pointed out, a state is no person. It is an institution, separate from and not dependant on religious institutions. A clean distinction between the two does not mean that a country 'drives God out', Ben. It rather creates an openness that is capable to reach beyond the limitations of any faith's religious interpretations. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2238
|
written Tuesday, June 28 2005 07:38
Profile
Homepage
Now see, why can't we run for office? I would personally like to thank everyone that has posted so far for providing a written argument towards a pesky Jesus-humping neighbor. She'll be most thrilled. -------------------- The critics agree! Demonslayer is "a five star hit!" raves TIMES Weekly! "I've never heard such thoughtful comments. This man is a genious!" says two-time Nobel Prize winning physicist Erwin Rasputin! Posts: 1582 | Registered: Wednesday, November 13 2002 08:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Tuesday, June 28 2005 08:23
Profile
Why does a sense of national unity actively need to be fostered? For all the talk about Red and Blue state America, America is simply not going to fall apart just like that. Secession is not going to happen any time soon. The purpose of national unity is to make people want to contribute to the running of a nation. However, a sense of alienation from the nation, or at least its actions, can be equally powerful in this respect (witness the rise of the Republican party in the 1850s.) If national unity, therefore, is to make people proud to be Nationality X, doesn't it make more sense to generate this by actions rather than a few rather vague dictums. Certainly, what national pride I feel comes because I live in a nation that, for all its manifold sins and foibles, looks after its weak and tries to improve their lot, that wants to act in a civilised manner, that has and continues to make a definite effort to make the world a better place. It's not because we used to rule 20% of the world's land surface or flogged more people per year than the Russian Empire or because of the monarch or any such thing. It's not about Dunkirk, because although I think the nation displayed certain admirable qualities during that time, it wasn't all nobility and one can't be patriotic merely due to the actions of my grandparents' and great-grandparents' generations. Personally, I refuse to sing our national anthem, because I'm a republican and it's an appalling old dirge. I think I'd most likely refuse to swear a pledge of allegiance as well. If my nation behaves as it ought to, it can naturally expect my support. Otherwise it has absolutely no right to ask me. -------------------- Voice of Reasonable Morality Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2