Removing the Ten Commandments

Squeek · August 25, 2003, 15:48:31

It shows you what our country is becoming. A judge has no freedom of speech or religion. Same with the school system. Kids aren't allowed to say God. They're thinking of banning the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE because it says GOD in it. THAT'S CRAP! Our country was built so that you can say whatever you want in public, about anything you want. That's GONE now.

~Squeek

goingslow · August 25, 2003, 15:57:55

crap way of looking at it squeek.

The judge can have the ten commandments all over his house.. he can have them in his wallet. He can have his mom stitch them onto his underwear.. but the ten commandments have absolutely no place in a courtroom.

Imagine a judge who is supposed to look at the law making LEGAL judgements from the standpoint of honor they father and mother, thou shall not worship any false gods.. etc. etc.. what if a jewish person is on trial.

COMPLETE separation of church and state. That is what our country was founded on in order to prevent persecution of the pilgrims by their government and any other group by a different religious organization. If this guy cannot obey a court decision what is he doing acting as a judge. would you want to go into his court if lets say you were a homosexual who was beaten because you were one? Especially knowing this person thinks the ten commandments and christian doctrine is equal with the law?

What if a person who practices magick or lets say has multiple books on Astral projection and other things typically looked at as evil by the church. Lets say they got fired on the job for having such books and was taking it to court. could you be confident he wouldnt be looking at your case from the ten commandment (false gods) instead of the law?

A person like that does not need to be judge. You have freedom of speech in everyday life.. but a judge's duty is to look at the law without prejudice and the biggest prejudice in the past was religious. If a judge was on the bench saying he hates blacks could he still be a judge? Especially since african americans might.. hmm be in the judicial system? But that's freedom of speech right?

Only in alabama.

goingslow · August 25, 2003, 16:25:15

btw crap way to me means wrong way. I know someone might take offense.

Squeek · August 25, 2003, 17:03:20

But they can have a statue of a blindfolded person holding a scale... How does having 10 rules outside your courtroom offend? You're a judge. You punish those that break the rules. These are just 10 rules that the judge will punish you for.

~Squeek

no_leaf_clover · August 25, 2003, 17:35:34

Judges have to go by the law, not just what they feel like doing. Those ten 'rules' were the commandments that God supposedly gave Moses. They promote Christianity and could alienate non-Christians, which is illegal.

Forgotten Flame 13 · August 25, 2003, 20:03:47

Hey!
May I remind you that everyone until Jesus was Jewish, Jesus was Jewish, and the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, WHO IS JEWISH!
The Ten Commandments are imprinted on the ark with the torah in our temple. Are you guys seeing my point?

goingslow · August 25, 2003, 20:10:47

I'm getting the feeling people dont fully understand the theory behind our judicial system.

Squeek are you serious? You just see them at ten more rules the judge can send people to jail for? You're old enough to know what a judge's role is in our system aren't you? They dont make up law as they go along they represent and enforce the law. Even judge's have rules they have to go by. Im thinking his defense is his rulings have nothing to do with the commandments and he still rules by the law. Which is questionable when a person is a fanatic.

I hope you were joking by your post squeek because if you believe he has the right to enforce the ten commandments in his rulings then I think our school systems arent getting across how our judicial system works.

BTW the blindfolded statue. Thats blind justice.. meaning a person's religion, color etc (even though it doesn't always work that way) wont be looked at when a judge who is enforcing the law (justice) makes a decision. I dont understand what point you were trying to make bringing that statue up. He is in a different position than most of us he has the power to rule on other people. With that position comes different rules.. and he cant suddenly decide he's going to punish a person for not honoring the sabbath.

Squeek · August 25, 2003, 20:41:07

Sorry sorry. Sheesh. It's just a reference. Our laws are so close to the last 4-10 anyway, so it's just another way of expressing the law. Don't kill, don't steal, etc. This is not any different from making a statue of the US CONSTITUTION.

We have a courtroom in DC that has the two stone tablets in it as well. Apparently it hasn't been a problem until now. How very odd.

If the world were truly free with a basic set of laws for humanity this wouldn't even make headline news.

~Squeek

shadowatcher · August 25, 2003, 22:21:59

Yeah, I think MouseMan has a point. The fact is, there not ENDORSING religion, there just a tribute to where our law system came from.

Squeek · August 26, 2003, 00:40:07

Finally someone understands me!!! Thanks for summing up my thoughts exactly shadow

~Squeek

WalkerInTheWoods · August 26, 2003, 05:31:18

I must agree with no_leaf_clover and goingslow. The government is suppose to remain separate from religion. By displaying religious rules they are endorsing a certain religion. Though many of those rules are common sense rules (do not steal, do not kill, etc) others are clearly religious in nature. Not only is one religious in nature, it flat out states that this religion is THE religion and that no other ideas are allowed, Thou shall have no other gods before me. That statement right there is rather offense to anyone that does not agree with this religion. The US government is not suppose to alienate any of its citizens. It is there for everyone. As the statue mentioned, it is there to blindly serve the people reguardless of their race, sex, or religion. So basicly this judge is trying to force his views on everyone else by displaying this on a government building. He is free to do so on his own property, like everyone else. He is free to stand on the corner and preach all day long. But he represents the government when he is a judge and must obey the laws of the government he represents.

How would you feel if this judge was Hindu, and was putting up idols of his god all over the government building and putting up religious Hindu text? Ask yourself, why do you support his actions? Is it because you agree with his religion, or his actions?

Traveler · August 26, 2003, 06:28:17

" I must agree with no_leaf_clover and goingslow. The government is suppose to remain separate from religion."

No where in the Constitution does it say seperation of church and state. The constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." For 150 years it meant the government cannot dictate what religion you must adhere to. Then all of a sudden, someone with an agenda decides it means religion has no place in government. BS! No matter what your religious beliefs, this country was founded on Christian principles with government and religion existing together. To me it means, plain and simple, that the government can't tell me what religion to follow or interfere with my worship. That's it.

Gandalf · August 26, 2003, 06:41:41

Could someone explain to me what this is all about?
I gather it has something to do with the actions of a judge? Did he put up a copy of the 10Cs in his court room?

That sounds quite mad to be honest! Everyone has a right to their own beliefs but they shouldnt start mixing law with religion, that's where the trouble starts. Over here in the UK, there is still such a throwback in that witnesses place their hand on the bible and swear to tell the whole truth, but that is more tradition than anything.

Also you have the option to refuse the bible and swear in a secular fashion ie 'I swear to tell the whole truth...' thats it!

It's not the first time there has been controvesy in the US about this however. Was it not George Bush senior that said that athiests shouldnt be citizens as the constitution states 'all are equal under GOD'? He seemed to take it that those who did not believe in god shoudnt be entitled to the same rights... mind you thats republicans for you!

Douglas

Novice · August 26, 2003, 07:32:21

Douglas-
Yes there is a judge in the southern US who was recently 'promoted'. Prior to this position, he was known to be very fond of the ten commandments (forget the details). But from the one article I read, he wanted to place a stone statue of the ten commandments inside the courthouse he was now working out of. The request was denied (for the reasons stated by No Leaf and Going Slow).

However, in the middle of the night, he had some people come and put it in (that's what the article said that I had read). Now if its true, that in itself doesn't sound very law-biding, particularly for a judge. He has now refused to remove them. As a result, there have been a lot of christian groups rallying to support his decision.

That's where this issue stands as of two or three weeks ago, although I haven't followed it since then.

I completely agree with No Leaf and Goingslow on this issue.

Traveler I understand what you are saying regarding the actual wording of the constitution. However, I think the impression that the commandment statue gives in this particular situation is that all decisions regarding court cases brought before this judge will be colored by his religous views. Thus his rulings will reflect his religous views and interpretations instead of the law. ANd in some circumstances (the homosexuality example above would be one) what the law may state in this case will probably be different than what the ten commandments (and the bible) suggest to be 'the law'.

One of my thoughts in this is that if they allow this to happen, it could pave the way for others to 'push further' and then have a statue of the bible or of Jesus, or some other religous icon within the court. Where do you draw the line and enforce it? IMO, in order to avoid this type of 'grey area' this statue should be removed.

And the whole suggestion by Bush that marriage should be stated to be only between a man and woman..............again, we have religious views trying to be imposed on something that really should have nothing to do with law. I understand for some legal reasons (taxes, inheritance, estate planning, etc) that the legal system needs to recognize marriage. However, the law currently does recognize marriage (for most of the states anyway). Bush isn't addressing recognizing marriage so much as defining who is allowed be legally be married.

The government has no business mandating rules that outline what marriage is. There are churches that conduct same sex marriage ceremonies. What gives the government the right to step in and say that this church is wrong in its definition of marriage? Wouldn't this then lead to further infringements upon the rights of others based on Christian (or other religous) views?

I didn't vote for Bush. But my reasons for not voting for him then were completely different to why I really don't like him as a president now. I have issues with many of his decisions. ANd my fear is that his stance on things like this are 'bleeding' into other areas of government (including this judge).

Sorry for the lengthy reply. I didn't mean to turn this into a political debate. I apologize. Anyways, that's the background on this judge....an my personal views on related issues (not that you asked).[:I]

Traveler · August 26, 2003, 09:52:45

Novice,
I see your point. Towards your point, Judges, and for that matter, lawyers are supposed to lay aside personal feelings and deal only with the word of the law. Does that happen all the time? No. I personally see no problem with something in his chambers but I feel it's inappropriate in the courtroom. I believe we cannot legislate morality hence my stance against making abortion illegal (its a moral issue and another can-o-worms I don't want to open right now). If the 10C are this judge's moral compass then he should be allowed to have them. Its a two edged sword. That's another form of religious descrimination. We have to rely on the rules that govern him while performing his duties to conduct those duties appropriately. That's life, we have to trust those with the responsibility and if they abuse it, remove them from the position. Just because the potential exists does not mean others can infringe on his rights. Where do we draw the line?

WalkerInTheWoods · August 26, 2003, 09:59:08

quote:
Originally posted by Traveler

The constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

To me, by the government having religious monuments it is "respecting an establishment or religion" or promoting it. To me this part of the Constitution says that the government cannot promote any religion. So what this judge is doing is wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Traveler

No matter what your religious beliefs, this country was founded on Christian principles with government and religion existing together.

If the founders of the US wanted government and religion to co-exist then they would have stated that the US was a Christian government and nation. Instead they clearly did not want the two to mix by stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...". If they wanted the government and religion to mix, why then did they state that no laws shall be made respecting any religion?

goingslow · August 26, 2003, 10:26:45

quote:
Originally posted by Traveler

" Then all of a sudden, someone with an agenda decides it means religion has no place in government. BS! No matter what your religious beliefs, this country was founded on Christian principles with government and religion existing together. To me it means, plain and simple, that the government can't tell me what religion to follow or interfere with my worship. That's it.

You're confusing christian beliefs with basic morality. Thats a common trend among christians. It is why they often fear athiests because if they're not getting "thou shall not kill" from the bible whats to stop them from killing.

They are not the same. And it was not founded on christian beliefs.. look at the people who drew up the constitution and how religious they were.

Another thing you should think about is the fact not everyone will always agree with a court decision. Think as a judge he will always make decisions others agree with? No, but as regular citizens we have no choice but to follow a court's decision or we are in contempt and will be sent to jail. But here is a judge who will have the power of the law at his side saying refusing to respect the court.

For the last time no one is saying he cant believe in the bible.. he does not own his building he works for the government and like all of us there are rules. I would guess most judges are probably christian.. has anyone ever told them to suddenly change faith? So why are so many of you saying "no one will tell me what religion I can be" etc.. its not logical and not the point.

goingslow · August 26, 2003, 10:31:46

BTW I'd like to remind you all again there are different standards for judges.. take the good with the bad. No 10 commandments in the courtroom. But there are perks. They represent the law and if you call them an moron you do jail time and pay a fine. If you even raise your voice at them you go to jail and/or pay a fine.

You say "id like to see that judge dead" or attempt to kill a judge you get a very substantial jail sentence much more than if you say it to joe blow.

So take the good with the bad. With that much power you have more responsibility. One is not alienating non christians just because you got an appointment and you are a fanatic.

Traveler · August 26, 2003, 13:56:42

fallen,
I see, you see "respecting an establishment of religion" as "paying homage to" or "Congress shall make no law honoring an establishment of religion". I see it as "Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion". This is the meaning I have always gone by because it makes more sense to me in the context of the document. If they had intended the way you're saying why did they hold prayer sessions during congress on numererous occassions? The evidence is in congress' own records which are available to the public. A lot of the founders were Christian. Though they weren't perfect, they held a vision that those to come after them would be better. The sticking point seems to be the context definition of "Respecting". I do see where you're coming from now but I still stand by my view. Any english teacher's here?

An aftertought, "respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion" not "respecting a religion". To me it still doesn't fit. Establishment of religion = officially sanctioned religion (for lack of better words).

A basic assumption is that Christians are perfect and don't make mistakes. They are not. They make mistakes and go through troubling times. They have problems and bad habits. Just because you do wrong does not mean you're no longer Christian. It just means satan got the best of you that time. Fact is Christians grow spiritually at different rates just like anyone else and none are infailable.

goingslow · August 26, 2003, 15:40:29

Whats funny is none of you would be complaining or saying how wrong it is if he had muslim scripts and religious icons all over the place. Not one of you. But you're christian and christianity should be everywhere shouldnt it?

Fallenangel made a point none of you have answered. Would you feel the same if it was another religion. AND he was making decisions based on religion.

The constitution has no more christian principles than it does any other religious MORAL principles. P oint to one principle in the constititution that is strictly christian.? Thou shall not steal? Thou shall not murder?

Look into the actual history of the constitution and look at the beliefs of the people who wrote it up. I feel you all are repeating what the person said behind you... They didnt use the exact words separation of church and state so im gonna pretend it isnt in there and our government doesn't separate the two.

get real

Allanon · August 26, 2003, 15:42:38

quote:
Hasn't the controversy around the commandments in that court been around for a while? I think the judge in question should resign and join the 700 Club.. If he was truly meant to be a judge, he would understand not everyone in America is Christian and not everyone in America would be comfortable with those commandments. He shouldn't taken the hint when it first became and issue and just taken it down instead of decided to be a hero for the church. The United States, unfortunately enough for this judge, has to recognize everyone's constitutional freedom of religion and right not to be alienated. I just thought I should share.

Your thoughts on this situation?

This country was founded by Christians and taking down the commandments will invoke the wrath of God.

goingslow · August 26, 2003, 15:44:35

quote:
Originally posted by Traveler

A basic assumption is that Christians are perfect and don't make mistakes. They are not. They make mistakes and go through troubling times. They have problems and bad habits. Just because you do wrong does not mean you're no longer Christian. It just means satan got the best of you that time. Fact is Christians grow spiritually at different rates just like anyone else and none are infailable.

Basic assumption of whom? other christians? They make mistakes too?? You're kidding or at least exaggerating.

goingslow · August 26, 2003, 15:54:46

I probably wont read this topic anymore its getting on my nerves. All the christians coming out saying how its big brother and the rest of us are sheep? Then one even talks about them allowing muslims to build on government land somewhere like we should all be up in arms. We're sheep? just like others toe party lines most christians just follow the christian line.

I see little hypocricy to the extreme I see among good christians and what it means to be good christians. There is no bigger group of biggots than most christians in the bible belt alabama. But they accept christ so they're free thinking people right. It disgusts me. And we're sheep for thinking differently.. take the bible out of your back pocket and think for yourself

see you on other topics.

Allanon · August 26, 2003, 16:43:39

quote:
take the bible out of your back pocket and think for yourself

I would rather take God's Word on things.

WalkerInTheWoods · August 26, 2003, 17:54:14

We could ignore the whole religious issue and look at the other things this judge has done. He asked if he could put up this monument, he was told no yet he does it anyway. I wonder what kind of judge breaks the laws just to please himself. Next, did he get a building permit to erect this monument? hmm ... Then, this is public property not his own, so why is it that he gets to put whatever he wants on it reguardless of what those above him says? This is his place of work. If I should go to work and put up something that those above me have told me not too I might be lucky to have a job the next day, but you can be sure that whatever it is I put up would be gone.

News:

Removing the Ten Commandments