| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Ten Commandments; Is it against the Consitution? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 27 2003, 08:29 PM (579 Views) | |
| Cool Vulcan | Aug 27 2003, 08:29 PM Post #1 |
|
Captain
|
Well I just watched the ABC news on News24, just alittle while ago. It had something that I feel disscussing here. Is it right to take God out of public places? We have In God We Trust on every coin, dollar bill. They also said it was against the Consitution. My opinion They should've never taken it out of a public place. Also it should say, the Consitution doesn't say that only certain things shouldn't be allowed and feel it has taken away someones right to worship or have something that they believe. As usal the Lefties got their way, may I ask has that clown ever seen the Consititution? Opinion are now open to debate. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| bonja | Aug 28 2003, 05:20 AM Post #2 |
|
Commodore
|
That monument should not have been there. The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing an official religion and restricting the practice of religion and that rock was nothing but a monument to Judeo-Christian ideals. There is nothing wrong with them but I don't want the government telling me to keep the Sabbath and worship Yaweh. If the government would also put monuments to the Koran, Rig Veda and the wisdom of Bazooka Joe among others, then the Commandments could stay. There are precedents for holiday displays. Would the pro-monument lobby be upset if a group was to sacrifice a goat to its gods on the Capitol steps? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Aug 28 2003, 06:10 AM Post #3 |
|
Unregistered
|
I think the removal of the statue (from public view) was a victory for the rule of Law. It shows us that no one, not even a powerful judge like this Moore character, can defy court orders and legal decisions. While I personally believe that the statue of the ten commandments should never have been put on display in the judicial building to begin with, I also believe that "supporters" have a right to peacefully demonstrate - and to legally appeal the decision to remove the statue. But when the appeals have been heard and a decision is "final" - the Law should prevail. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Wichita | Aug 28 2003, 07:03 AM Post #4 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
As much as I would like to see the Ten Commandments posted, I can't say that I think that it should be. In a place where people are being judged, it could give the appearance that non-Christians will not get a fair case. I do, however, think the move to separate Church and state has gone farther than the Founding Fathers intended. Too often Christianity is banned as a topic of discussion while other religions ARE taught in the name of diversity. There should be consistency. Last word (for now <_< ) on the Ten Commandement decision.... The Ten Commandments are part of the history of the law just as Buddism or Hinduism may be the foundation of the law in other countries. Does it have place in display that also included the Magna Carta and other documents that are the foundation for our laws? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Jmkeepingca | Aug 28 2003, 08:37 AM Post #5 |
|
Master Chief
|
Being someone who almost joined the Anglician Ministery ( until I had a faith shaking incident which still keeps me away ) I feel I have to weigh in on this even though it has nothing to do with my country. Seperation of Church and State is good when no one religion is influencing the way the State is run. I think the whole idea was to diversify the ideas and ideals of those in power. For example... a Catholic and a Protestant may not have the same ideals, but working together they will probably come to the best solution possible. Same can be said for Christians and Jews... different faiths, but when working together and not being led or "goverened" by any one faith can reach the best possible solution for the greatest number of people. However, I think displaying the Ten Commandments in a public place is okay. It is part of Human History... one that is hard to deny or refute. Sure even the most skeptical person cannot deny they exist... they are written, they are canon and here is the HUGE kicker... they are actually part of our legal system. See, the current legal system is based on the ancient Greek and Roman systems of justice ( loosely... but based nontheless... ). When Rome became Christianized the Commandments were added to Roman Law and made canon. Basically if A = B = C then A = C. Maybe I am way off base... but I never saw what the big hullabaloo was about having the Ten Commandments in a public place. Will people get up in arms if it is a Buddha statue or the Koran or the teachings of Mohammed? I sure hope they do... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 28 2003, 10:42 AM Post #6 |
|
Admiral
|
The argument you need to make is why the monument belonged on the judicial building property. Without that, anyone could claim the right to put anything there. How about a statue of Elvis? How about a flag from the local Moose lodge? There are plenty of places of worship for people to go to if they want to see the 10 Commandments. Those places are where the 10 Commandments belong. Some have argued that the court is concerned with morality and so is the 10 Commandments and that's why it was appropriate. The problem with that argument is whose morality are we talking about? The 10 Commandments are Judeo-Christian. But what about followers of Buddha, Islaam, Hinduism? It would be meaningless to them. The only moral code that applies to everyone that steps foot in that court is the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. system of laws. And that's one really good reason that we have a separation of church and state.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Jmkeepingca | Aug 28 2003, 10:58 AM Post #7 |
|
Master Chief
|
I agree... however does it also not state in the constitution that the US is "One Country under God'? If so, then should the constitution be ammended to say Buddha, Allah, Zing-Zing ( whatever )... you get the point right? What about placing your hand on the bible when appearing in court? Should that be changed to reflect the person testifying? I am just curious, because honestly I have no idea what the US Constitution says or if they even use a bible in the legal system... :rolleyes: If so, doesn't removing the Ten Commandments monument seem a bit... well... hypocritical? <_< Again, just asking... making no judgements here... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 28 2003, 11:52 AM Post #8 |
|
Admiral
|
No, it doesn't. You are probably thinking of The Pledge of Allegiance.
No, I think the Bible should be removed too. Again, separation of church and state.
Yes, the Bible is used. And removing the monument without removing the Bible is hypocritical which is why I believe both should go. B) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Jmkeepingca | Aug 28 2003, 12:25 PM Post #9 |
|
Master Chief
|
My bad... k... now I got it...
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Cool Vulcan | Aug 28 2003, 12:40 PM Post #10 |
|
Captain
|
Actually it is Under one Nation under God. Also the Commandments have three versions, Jewish, Cathalic, and Muslium. I didn't like what that Govinor said about hes going to do. Amendment I 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. Heres the first Amendment. This is what it says on the internet version. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 28 2003, 01:23 PM Post #11 |
|
Admiral
|
Actually it's just "One nation, under God..." |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 28 2003, 01:37 PM Post #12 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
There is NO separation in church and state. Sorry, please read your Constitution. Tell me exactly where it says anything about separation of church and state. Just because Jefferson may have said this in one of his writings does not make it law. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Lilac | Aug 28 2003, 02:03 PM Post #13 |
|
Painting the board red
|
Well, since the parts of the Ten Commandments everyone [who is sane] agrees with anyway (thou shalt no kill, thou shalt not steal, etc), there's no need for it to be part of the Constitution. However, if it was made part of the Constitution, then anyone who wasn't Christian would be breaking the law. And I think we should all have freedom to religion, but freedom FROM it as well. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 28 2003, 05:04 PM Post #14 |
|
Admiral
|
The first ammendment of the U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, has been left open to some interpretation as to what the original meaning really was. As you know, many have interpreted this ammendment to include a separation of church and state and many interpret it differently and don't agree that it says anything about such separation. There is extensive information on the internet supporting both positions. From what I've seen and heard, I conclude that the vast majority agree that there is a separation of church and state in this country. That said, you avoided answering my primary point. What is the argument to say that the monument belongs on the judicial building grounds? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 29 2003, 09:02 AM Post #15 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Only the uninformed agree with the "separation of church and state" argument, because they don't know better. And I find it somewhat baffling that people keep quoting the one letter from Thomas Jefferson wherein he references a 'wall of separation' as it is law and part of the Constitution. Before you or someone else says it, Jefferson was NOT an athiest, but didn't believe in organized religion. The meaning and intent of, ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'' in the 1st Amendment is not debatable. The U.S. shall have no Federally mandated and/or supported religion, i.e., Church of the USA. (see Church of England) And just because some judge or judges in the past had decreed by fiat that it means something completely different is irrelevant. As for why the monument should be there... for the same reason the Ten Commandments are depicted on the U.S. Supreme Court building and the court opens its sessions with an invocation... because they are the backbone of our laws. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


2:14 PM Jul 11