Mississippi joins the fight for 10 comandments!

[bjc112]

WOW - Musgrove(Democrat) supports this? I thought only rightwing nutbag Republicans would support "imposing" their views on people.

That's the way it seems... We are always forcing people to do this and that...

Dems better get a grip on this fool....

Lets "carpet bomb mississippi" too...

 

[0roo0roo]

labels don't mean much. a southern democrat is sometimes about the same as a west/east coast republican

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
labels don't mean much. a southern democrat is sometimes about the same as a west/east coast republican

Then i guess all republicans are sometimes the same as west/east coast dems...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Just like having the monument there does not say "Christianity" is the only religion.

Of course it doesn't say that, but it does give the appearance that the government is endorsing that religion...whether or not it actually is. That is the problem.

If the area where the ten commandments monument was also had several other displays depicting every other religion, it would probably not be a problem because there would be no appearance of endorsement of one particular religion and/or set of beliefs.

So because no one else was doing it but still had the capability of doing so - means that the first one can't? Somehow I don't buy that

CkG

 

[Insane3D]

Well, I'm sure no matter how much we discuss this, we just have a fundamentally different view on this. However, I think you know it's not quite that simple. In my view, it would be Moore's responsibility to install the other monuments, not the followers of those other religions, if he wanted his monument there.

Also, I'm curious. Would you be upset if a judge in another state installed a monument that had versus from the Satanic bible, or other depictions of that religion in his court, and was forced to remove it for the same reasons?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Just like having the monument there does not say "Christianity" is the only religion.

Of course it doesn't say that, but it does give the appearance that the government is endorsing that religion...whether or not it actually is. That is the problem.

If the area where the ten commandments monument was also had several other displays depicting every other religion, it would probably not be a problem because there would be no appearance of endorsement of one particular religion and/or set of beliefs.

So because no one else was doing it but still had the capability of doing so - means that the first one can't? Somehow I don't buy that

CkG

Judge Moore was asked by numerous other groups to place plaques and/or statues in the rotunda and all were roundly rejected. I can Google the exact details if you insist on details. Look Cad, frankly it blows my mind that you can't see why it would be good for our government to remain secular and neutral when it comes to religion. Nobody is taking ANYTHING away that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Our government buildings and public schools should not become shrines to any one particular religion.

I'm absolutely, positively convinced that the only reason you're in favor of this kind of government endorsement of religion is because it's YOUR religion. You, and the others here, would NOT be in favor of it had the monument been devoted to Islam or Buddism or Hinduism. The only reason it's acceptable, is because it's devoted to Christianity as are you.

What if a judge in Iowa decided that he was going to place a 2-1/2 ton altar facing Mecca in the courtyard of the Iowa Judicial Branch Building in Des Moines? 5 times a day he would come out to the courtyard and roll out a nice carpet and pray to Allah facing Mecca. In conversations with court officials and other judges, he professed his deep belief that he should be able to decide cases based on Islamic law. Would that be acceptable to you Cad? Yes or no, please.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Just like having the monument there does not say "Christianity" is the only religion.

Of course it doesn't say that, but it does give the appearance that the government is endorsing that religion...whether or not it actually is. That is the problem.

If the area where the ten commandments monument was also had several other displays depicting every other religion, it would probably not be a problem because there would be no appearance of endorsement of one particular religion and/or set of beliefs.

So because no one else was doing it but still had the capability of doing so - means that the first one can't? Somehow I don't buy that

CkG

Judge Moore was asked by numerous other groups to place plaques and/or statues in the rotunda and all were roundly rejected. I can Google the exact details if you insist on details. Look Cad, frankly it blows my mind that you can't see why it would be good for our government to remain secular and neutral when it comes to religion. Nobody is taking ANYTHING away that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Our government buildings and public schools should not become shrines to any one particular religion.

I'm absolutely, positively convinced that the only reason you're in favor of this kind of government endorsement of religion is because it's YOUR religion. You, and the others here, would NOT be in favor of it had the monument been devoted to Islam or Buddism or Hinduism. The only reason it's acceptable, is because it's devoted to Christianity as are you.

What if a judge in Iowa decided that he was going to place a 2-1/2 ton altar facing Mecca in the courtyard of the Iowa Judicial Branch Building in Des Moines? 5 times a day he would come out to the courtyard and roll out a nice carpet and pray to Allah facing Mecca. In conversations with court officials and other judges, he professed his deep belief that he should be able to decide cases based on Islamic law. Would that be acceptable to you Cad? Yes or no, please.

Sure - I see no problem with other's having their own faith as long as they uphold the laws of Iowa they are fine. I don't care what religious law he/she claims to base decisions on because they are duty bound to uphold the law. BTW - Moore was elected by the people and he was the chief Justice - so he wasn't just some nutbag - he has quite an extensive history of being a judge.

Now, I can understand your confusion as to why I "can't see why it would be good for our government to remain secular and neutral when it comes to religion." - because we already are such. We don't make "laws" that prevent others from having faith in any Religion(well, there might be some that have beliefs/rituals/practicesthat we have laws against). The crux of the problem lies in where each individual draws the "establisment" line. IMO it hasn't been close for ever(if ever).

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Just like having the monument there does not say "Christianity" is the only religion.

Of course it doesn't say that, but it does give the appearance that the government is endorsing that religion...whether or not it actually is. That is the problem.

If the area where the ten commandments monument was also had several other displays depicting every other religion, it would probably not be a problem because there would be no appearance of endorsement of one particular religion and/or set of beliefs.

So because no one else was doing it but still had the capability of doing so - means that the first one can't? Somehow I don't buy that

CkG

Judge Moore was asked by numerous other groups to place plaques and/or statues in the rotunda and all were roundly rejected. I can Google the exact details if you insist on details. Look Cad, frankly it blows my mind that you can't see why it would be good for our government to remain secular and neutral when it comes to religion. Nobody is taking ANYTHING away that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Our government buildings and public schools should not become shrines to any one particular religion.

I'm absolutely, positively convinced that the only reason you're in favor of this kind of government endorsement of religion is because it's YOUR religion. You, and the others here, would NOT be in favor of it had the monument been devoted to Islam or Buddism or Hinduism. The only reason it's acceptable, is because it's devoted to Christianity as are you.

What if a judge in Iowa decided that he was going to place a 2-1/2 ton altar facing Mecca in the courtyard of the Iowa Judicial Branch Building in Des Moines? 5 times a day he would come out to the courtyard and roll out a nice carpet and pray to Allah facing Mecca. In conversations with court officials and other judges, he professed his deep belief that he should be able to decide cases based on Islamic law. Would that be acceptable to you Cad? Yes or no, please.

Sure - I see no problem with other's having their own faith as long as they uphold the laws of Iowa they are fine. I don't care what religious law he/she claims to base decisions on because they are duty bound to uphold the law. BTW - Moore was elected by the people and he was the chief Justice - so he wasn't just some nutbag - he has quite an extensive history of being a judge.

Now, I can understand your confusion as to why I "can't see why it would be good for our government to remain secular and neutral when it comes to religion." - because we already are such. We don't make "laws" that prevent others from having faith in any Religion(well, there might be some that have beliefs/rituals/practicesthat we have laws against). The crux of the problem lies in where each individual draws the "establisment" line. IMO it hasn't been close for ever(if ever).

CkG

That's great, but my example is equally as wrong constitutionally as the Judge Moore case. I can only imagine the uproar something like that would cause.

Moore is acting like he doesn't have to follow the law, in fact he acts like he's above it somehow. But being secular and neutral regarding religion is more than passing or not passing laws. There are numerous other ways government can promote (e.g. establish) religion that don't involve passing laws. I can think of numerous examples.

It's good though to see you're open-minded enough to be OK with the Islamic monument example. I don't think a lot of Christians would be. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I really don't think so. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion on both sides. To be honest, I really think that's what Moore wanted. He knew from the beginning it would cause a stir. I can only guess at the reasons why he would do so....

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: VioletAura
If the judge had put up a statue of Budda, Shiva, or Confucius, those same people who are protesting to keep the 10 commandments monument would had dragged it out, smashed it to pieces and set it on fire. Even though some argument can be given for secular applications, it wouldn't have mattered to them. It would be easier for them to see the seperation of church and state violation if it wasn't their religion.

I think you have the wrong country and religion there. I have no probs with them displaying it as long as they don't come knocking on my door asking me if I died tomorrow do I know where I would be. If you are offended by statues and sculptures, then you need to be sterilized so you don't infect the rest of the gene pool with your contagion.

Bottom line is this is not a federal matter and the federal government has no fvcking rights to meddle in what should be a state issue. I'd like to see them threaten seceding again.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
WOW - Musgrove(Democrat) supports this? :Q I thought only rightwing nutbag Republicans would support "imposing" their views on people.

Seriously though, this will be an interesting fight to see play out in the USSC. It will go that far if the federal courts keep ruling as they have lately.

CkG

Just goes to show there are nutbags in both parties. The South is part of the Bible Belt so it really isn't a surprise that there is strong feelings in favor of Christian Symbols being displayed. They also have strong feelings about the Feds getting involved with local and state affairs. Remember, Bobby Kennedy had to call in the National Guard Federal Laws against segregation

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
WOW - Musgrove(Democrat) supports this? :Q I thought only rightwing nutbag Republicans would support "imposing" their views on people.

Seriously though, this will be an interesting fight to see play out in the USSC. It will go that far if the federal courts keep ruling as they have lately.

CkG

Just goes to show there are nutbags in both parties. The South is part of the Bible Belt so it really isn't a surprise that there is strong feelings in favor of Christian Symbols being displayed. They also have strong feelings about the Feds getting involved with local and state affairs. Remember, Bobby Kennedy had to call in the National Guard Federal Laws against segregation

Probably still sore about the Union stamping all over the Constitution and States rights when they refused to honor the South's right to secession and declared war on them.

 

[VioletAura]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: VioletAura
If the judge had put up a statue of Budda, Shiva, or Confucius, those same people who are protesting to keep the 10 commandments monument would had dragged it out, smashed it to pieces and set it on fire. Even though some argument can be given for secular applications, it wouldn't have mattered to them. It would be easier for them to see the seperation of church and state violation if it wasn't their religion.

I think you have the wrong country and religion there. I have no probs with them displaying it as long as they don't come knocking on my door asking me if I died tomorrow do I know where I would be. If you are offended by statues and sculptures, then you need to be sterilized so you don't infect the rest of the gene pool with your contagion.

Bottom line is this is not a federal matter and the federal government has no fvcking rights to meddle in what should be a state issue. I'd like to see them threaten seceding again.

It is the right wing christians that want that display to remain who are offended by others religions and their "false worship". You really think that those who want that 10c thing there would stand for another religions icon place on display then you are too idealistic, and that is not a bad thing, it should be that way, but it is not. The government has seperation of church and state to avoid such conflicts since it would be practically impossible to satisfy all parties to prevent one religious group from dominating.

BTW every weekend I get a knocks on my door from several christian groups asking me if I died tomorrow do I know where I would be.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: VioletAura
If the judge had put up a statue of Budda, Shiva, or Confucius, those same people who are protesting to keep the 10 commandments monument would had dragged it out, smashed it to pieces and set it on fire. Even though some argument can be given for secular applications, it wouldn't have mattered to them. It would be easier for them to see the seperation of church and state violation if it wasn't their religion.

Exactly. There are fundamentalists in every religion VA, we just call them "orthodox" or "strict". And I must agree as a southener, it's not easy being another religion when you are surrounded by the plethora of bible toting, Jesus freaks that live around here. I'm all for strict separation of church and state... everywhere. Unless, of course, people are ready to put up a cross, crescent moon, star of David, statue of Buddha, etc etc etc everywhere they feel God's presence is needed.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: VioletAura

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: VioletAura
If the judge had put up a statue of Budda, Shiva, or Confucius, those same people who are protesting to keep the 10 commandments monument would had dragged it out, smashed it to pieces and set it on fire. Even though some argument can be given for secular applications, it wouldn't have mattered to them. It would be easier for them to see the seperation of church and state violation if it wasn't their religion.

I think you have the wrong country and religion there. I have no probs with them displaying it as long as they don't come knocking on my door asking me if I died tomorrow do I know where I would be. If you are offended by statues and sculptures, then you need to be sterilized so you don't infect the rest of the gene pool with your contagion.

Bottom line is this is not a federal matter and the federal government has no fvcking rights to meddle in what should be a state issue. I'd like to see them threaten seceding again.

It is the right wing christians that want that display to remain who are offended by others religions and their "false worship". You really think that those who want that 10c thing there would stand for another religions icon place on display then you are too idealistic, and that is not a bad thing, it should be that way, but it is not. The federal government has seperation of church and state to avoid such conflicts since it would be practically impossible to satisfy all parties to prevent one religious group from dominating.

BTW every weekend I get a knocks on my door from several christian groups asking me if I died tomorrow do I know where I would be.

fixed for you. Does the Alabama state government have a clause about seperating church and state? Also, one sculpture does not equal the marriage of church and state.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: VioletAura
If the judge had put up a statue of Budda, Shiva, or Confucius, those same people who are protesting to keep the 10 commandments monument would had dragged it out, smashed it to pieces and set it on fire. Even though some argument can be given for secular applications, it wouldn't have mattered to them. It would be easier for them to see the seperation of church and state violation if it wasn't their religion.

Exactly. There are fundamentalists in every religion VA, we just call them "orthodox" or "strict". And I must agree as a southener, it's not easy being another religion when you are surrounded by the plethora of bible toting, Jesus freaks that live around here. I'm all for strict separation of church and state... everywhere. Unless, of course, people are ready to put up a cross, crescent moon, star of David, statue of Buddha, etc etc etc everywhere they feel God's presence is needed.

Are you a fundamentalist? Have you ever heard the expression you can't please all the people all the time or Majority rules.

Put it to a democratic vote in Alabama, unless of course you don't believe in democracy and would rather the federal government dictate your rights

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Put it to a democratic vote in Alabama, unless of course you don't believe in democracy and would rather the federal government dictate your rights

Nitemare: Does the U.S. Constitution not supercede individual state constitutions? Does Federal law not trump state law? Can you make a state law that violates federal law?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Are you a fundamentalist? Have you ever heard the expression you can't please all the people all the time or Majority rules.

Put it to a democratic vote in Alabama, unless of course you don't believe in democracy and would rather the federal government dictate your rights

We don't live in a strict democracy.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Put it to a democratic vote in Alabama, unless of course you don't believe in democracy and would rather the federal government dictate your rights

Nitemare: Does the U.S. Constitution not supercede individual state constitutions? Does Federal law not trump state law? Can you make a state law that violates federal law?

The US would be a much better place if the federal government relinquished 2/3 of its unconstitutional yet assumed rights. They are making laws and setting precedences that they have no legal rights to do so. Sorry, but I don't like socialism or bloated governments dictating what I can and cann not do, especially when it is violating my Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Are you a fundamentalist? Have you ever heard the expression you can't please all the people all the time or Majority rules.

Put it to a democratic vote in Alabama, unless of course you don't believe in democracy and would rather the federal government dictate your rights

We don't live in a strict democracy.

I know, we live in a socialistic republic

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Put it to a democratic vote in Alabama, unless of course you don't believe in democracy and would rather the federal government dictate your rights

Nitemare: Does the U.S. Constitution not supercede individual state constitutions? Does Federal law not trump state law? Can you make a state law that violates federal law?

The US would be a much better place if the federal government relinquished 2/3 of its unconstitutional yet assumed rights. They are making laws and setting precedences that they have no legal rights to do so. Sorry, but I don't like socialism or bloated governments dictating what I can and cann not do, especially when it is violating my Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

There's a lot riding on that one word: establishment. Fortunately, your interpretation is not the one that gets used to decide cases like this. And you know what's funny, I don't want a gov't-sanctioned church or state sanctioned religion either. Apparantly, you don't care about MY rights, do you? Besides, "State's Rights" is just a cover for "we want to keep our slaves" or "we want to smoke marijuana and shoot heroin" or "we want a Christian theocracy." Or fill in the freakin' blank.

I'm glad our federal gov't is looking out for the minority. Mob rule is not a good alternative, IMO.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Put it to a democratic vote in Alabama, unless of course you don't believe in democracy and would rather the federal government dictate your rights

Nitemare: Does the U.S. Constitution not supercede individual state constitutions? Does Federal law not trump state law? Can you make a state law that violates federal law?

The US would be a much better place if the federal government relinquished 2/3 of its unconstitutional yet assumed rights. They are making laws and setting precedences that they have no legal rights to do so. Sorry, but I don't like socialism or bloated governments dictating what I can and cann not do, especially when it is violating my Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

There's a lot riding on that one word: establishment. Fortunately, your interpretation is not the one that gets used to decide cases like this. And you know what's funny, I don't want a gov't-sanctioned church or state sanctioned religion either. Apparantly, you don't care about MY rights, do you? Besides, "State's Rights" is just a cover for "we want to keep our slaves" or "we want to smoke marijuana and shoot heroin" or "we want a Christian theocracy." Or fill in the freakin' blank.

I'm glad our federal gov't is looking out for the minority. Mob rule is not a good alternative, IMO.

Who said anything about slaves? Just because they are in the South makes them racist and want to have slaves doesn't it? Who said anything about a gov't sanctioned church or religion. I think you have been smoking too much marijuana and shooting bad heroin.

 

[NerdMan]

Let's look at the Ten Commandments...

1. Have no other gods before me [the God of the Hebrews].
2. Make no images of anything in heaven, earth or the sea, and do not worship or labor for them.
3. Do not vainly use the name of your God [the God of the Hebrews].
4. Do no work on the seventh day of the week.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not give false testimony against another.
10. Do not desire another's wife or anything that belongs to another.


We can clearly see that Commandment 1 clearly violates the FIRST amendment (prohibiting the preaching of another god/religion). If a state supports the ten commandments, then they are in violation of the CONSTITUTION, and therefore are an enemy of the United States.

Commandment two also violates the FIRST amendment to publish anything we like.

Commandment three also violates the FIRST amendment of free speech.

Commandments 6, 8 & 9 support the constitution / established laws so I have no problem with them.

Commandments 4, 5, 7 & 10 violates free will. I have no comment on the morals or consequenses of those actions.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: VioletAura
If the judge had put up a statue of Budda, Shiva, or Confucius, those same people who are protesting to keep the 10 commandments monument would had dragged it out, smashed it to pieces and set it on fire. Even though some argument can be given for secular applications, it wouldn't have mattered to them. It would be easier for them to see the seperation of church and state violation if it wasn't their religion.

A-frigging-men!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: NerdMan
Let's look at the Ten Commandments...

1. Have no other gods before me [the God of the Hebrews].
2. Make no images of anything in heaven, earth or the sea, and do not worship or labor for them.
3. Do not vainly use the name of your God [the God of the Hebrews].
4. Do no work on the seventh day of the week.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not give false testimony against another.
10. Do not desire another's wife or anything that belongs to another.


We can clearly see that Commandment 1 clearly violates the FIRST amendment (prohibiting the preaching of another god/religion). If a state supports the ten commandments, then they are in violation of the CONSTITUTION, and therefore are an enemy of the United States.

Commandment two also violates the FIRST amendment to publish anything we like.

Commandment three also violates the FIRST amendment of free speech.

Commandments 6, 8 & 9 support the constitution / established laws so I have no problem with them.

Commandments 4, 5, 7 & 10 violates free will. I have no comment on the morals or consequenses of those actions.

Correct on all counts, good post.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: NerdMan
Let's look at the Ten Commandments...

1. Have no other gods before me [the God of the Hebrews].
2. Make no images of anything in heaven, earth or the sea, and do not worship or labor for them.
3. Do not vainly use the name of your God [the God of the Hebrews].
4. Do no work on the seventh day of the week.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not give false testimony against another.
10. Do not desire another's wife or anything that belongs to another.


We can clearly see that Commandment 1 clearly violates the FIRST amendment (prohibiting the preaching of another god/religion). If a state supports the ten commandments, then they are in violation of the CONSTITUTION, and therefore are an enemy of the United States.

Commandment two also violates the FIRST amendment to publish anything we like.

Commandment three also violates the FIRST amendment of free speech.

Commandments 6, 8 & 9 support the constitution / established laws so I have no problem with them.

Commandments 4, 5, 7 & 10 violates free will. I have no comment on the morals or consequenses of those actions.

Do paintings of Jesus crucified make you go out herding up Christians and nail them to a cross? It doesn't? wow. I bet it offends you as well.

Ever visit the Louvre or the Smithsonian and see religious art? Did it offend you? No, how come?

It's a friggin lump of Granite, get way over it. All you whiny ass people who can't stomach other beliefs need to grow some. Everything in this world will offend someone. It offends me reading some posts in P & N, but do I grow whining to a moderator? Fvck no. Pull your panties out and go trumpet another cause.