Yet another frivolous lawsuit

[SCO]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

I think there is a reason that our money does not say "In Jesus We Trust". It's too specific, and anyone can insert their own interpretation of God. We are already PC on that issue. Our law is in fact based on the 10 commandments. Were the Norsemen the founders of our country( could have happened...Eric the Red) it might read "Thou shall not kill anyone but English Monks". What this culture counts as right and wrong was pretty much spelled out in that list of 10. Our laws are based on these cultural values. I think the 10 commandments are perfectly appropriate in any courtroom in this country, not to promote a religion, but as the basis of the core values our laws are based on. To me it is not a church and state issue.

 

[ob]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Who said anything about the left Plypoorlistener?You're kinda hung up on that lefty righty issue.And what exactly is the left?I also notice you like to say I told you so a lot.You're not the messiah are you?If people and yourself (the left I presume)want to waste your time and money reading Al Frankens twist on things.Go for it.You'll find it in the time wasting section of your local book store.Right next to the Al Franken bad comedy reruns.

 

[Gold Bear]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

plywoody <br /><br />"The only thing that is in dispute is whether this belongs in a public place, such as a courthouse, and the "left" would object if any religious code was so placed"<br /><br />Is that so? Where was the left when the Ten Commandments were placed in the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C?<br /><br />Regards, <br /><br />Gold Bear

 

[JGREGORY]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

As much as I hate to say this.. I agree with plywoody & JB.<br /><br />The Constitution is based on the rights of man a philosopical thinking that occured during the 17th and 18th century. I think they resemble closely the ten commandments because every body would agree that commandments 4-10 would be a right granted by a "supreme being" no matter who you are. <br /><br />skinnny said,<br />

but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States <br />

However, States are NOT allowed to pass laws that infringe the Constitution.<br /><br />I find it a sad state of affairs that unless you follow traditional thought you are branded a rebel. The Pilgrims came to this land escaping that line of thinking. <br /><br />The Constitution is there to protect all of us. And it take courage to listen to opinions that make your blood boil. Our Government is not one based on secular values but based on the belief of a higher power (we use the term God but you could substitute Allah, Yahweh, Budda depending on belief system) has givin every person rights that may not be infringed upon especially by the Government. The Government's position is that they have no position regarding anything relgious and are to refrain from promoting or restricting any religion or belief system.<br /><br />Move the Comandments to a private place or lease where they are to a private individual. And lets get back to the serious matter of addressing our freedoms that have been abridged

 

[DJ]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Oh yeah, the ACLU is some vast right wing outfit-NOT!<br /><br />Al Franken? He's a goof.

 

[ob]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

We use the term God and its initial intention was not what you describe.We also don't place our hand on a copy of the Koran or a marvel comic book.Also I feel that JB speaks from what he truly believes and PW just likes to go against the grain.Same stand....Two different reasons.

 

[JGREGORY]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Yes, but ob would you object to a muslim if they requested that they put their hand on the Koran instead.<br /><br />Is the Bible there representing Christian values or is it there as a symbol of a higher power who you will have to answer to if you lie under oath.<br /><br />As for the the Ten Commandment's in the Supreme court building (I'm going to draw a lot of flak for this) they do not belong there either. What should have been posted was the Bill of Rights. Is that not what the Supreme court is supposed to do.. Protect and Interpret the Constitution. Not the Ten Commandments.

 

[DJ]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

jgregory,<br /><br />Yes, I would have a serious problem with a Muslim wanting to put his/her hand on the Koran. This is the USA, not Saudi Arabia. Our laws are based upon Christian principles, not Allah's.<br /><br />Remember the woman in Fla. that wanted to have her drivers license pic. taken with a shawl over her face? Remember, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do". I do not want people coming here expecting the same thing they had where they came from.<br /><br />If I go to Mexico, I am under their laws, not ours.

 

[ob]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

No I would not have a problem with a Muslim placing his hand on a copy of the Koran as long as its teachings and followers were devout in truth and honesty.So far many of the actions of Muslims have shown a different face.Two faced.Do you think your muslim brothers would be willing to see things your way in their country?I think we already know that answer.And what does this say of their teachings?Actions speak louder than words.

 

[JGREGORY]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

djohns, As for the florida thing I agree with you. The purpose of the the picture was for Identification since driving is a priviledge she had a choice have here picture taken or don't drive.<br /><br />As for when in Rome...<br /><br />If the majority of this country is Christian then we should have a national religion. Any thing else is not allowed or tolerated..<br /><br />Since the majority of this country seals english that sould be the official language. Nothing else allowed or tolaerated. (by the way maybe it should be)<br /><br />If the majority of people like the color blue that should be the oficial color of the nation. Nothing else allowed or tolerated. <br /><br />Since the majority of this country is hetrosexual, everybody else should be asked to leave or terminated. Nothing else allowed or tolerated.<br /><br />Since the majority of the country is normal. We should get rid of those with mental defects. Nothing else allowed or tolerated.<br /><br />See where it leads. Reminds me of Nazi Germany.<br /><br />Ihave never read the Koran, I do have friends that are Muslim and if what they tell me is true the teachings of the Koran are almost the same as the Bible. <br /><br />Granted the founding Father's where all Christian. However, They did there damndest to keep Religion out of the Constitution. They Did believe In a higher Authority, and that authority has givin certain rights to man that may never be infringed. The Bible I believe is a symbol of that authority. I would have no problem with a muslim swearing on the Koran at least then I know he is more likly to be telling the truth. If he swears on the bible, that holds no reprecussions for him so there is no reason for him to tell the truth. <br /><br />Now before everbody thinks I'm a pagan or a athiest. Please be advised that I am a devoted Catholic. Church on Sunday and the whole nine yards. Having said that. I feel that the less government intervention on all fronts the better. And any policies that cause this kind of discord are policies or acts that should not have taken place. The Government is supposed to neutral and not be the cause of strife that sets intelligant men/ladies into positions that when all is said and done nothing has changed.

 

[JGREGORY]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

ob,<br /><br />I respect your opinion and you have helped me out a few times with some great advise. But a fanatical few do not make the majority of the population. And I blame this view on the media. Because all we ever see is the ones that cause trouble they make the news. If they all had the same view and the fanatism to go along with it Isreal would have been wiped off the map a long time ago.

 

[JB]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

It is not my goal here to attack anyone's beliefs or principles.<br /><br />In that way, I am definitely not a "Christian" by much behavior I have observed. For examples:<br /><br />If you believe differently than I, I don't believe that you are wrong or that you are destined to roast in Hell for eternity.<br /><br />I do not claim exclusive truth for what I believe.<br /><br />I do not claim "ownership" of the values and principles I have usurped (adopted) from other belief systems and cultures.<br /><br />I respect your beliefs to the degree that you honor them with your behavior, not your tongue.<br /><br />I do not attempt to dominate you with symbols and ceremonies of my belief system, nor do I approve of laws that require you to acknowledge my beliefs. I believe that our Constitution forbids it.<br /><br />I suppose some see this as a very liberal point of view. It is not. It is a very conservative, even Libertarian point of view.<br /><br />As I said before, what is true will remain true, regardless of the opinions and opression of the "majority".

 

[ob]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

jgregory,the few bad apples theory in my opinion does not apply to the recent problems we have had with Muslims.These peoples countries leaders were funding and plotting their anti-American crusade.Therefore I feel that some of your analogies were a bit far from the tree.If there are a majority of wholesome people of these countries ,then I feel it's up to them to find some guts and overthrow their own countries dictators.Quite frankly I don't feel that anywhere near the majority of these nations people look favorably on the U.S. and its citizens.That's the problem that I have with all of this "benifit of the doubt propaganda."

 

[DJ]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

I do not want a national religion any more than anyone else. That is what the Puritans fled when they left England.<br /><br />However, we cannot deny the principles on which our laws are based.<br /><br />Hitlers Nazi Germany has been mentioned. One of Hitlers first agendas was to wipe out ANY semblence of religion or the belief in a higher power. Once that was accomplished, the people would follow (worship) him, and they did. <br /><br />Hitler may have been certifiably nuts, but he wasn't stupid. He knew where to start and one of his prized subjects of propoganda was the youth.<br /><br />Once propogandized, no belief in a higher authority-than man, he could make them do anything he wanted. I do not believe that anyone with any moral background can willingly murder thousands of defenseless people.<br /><br />If you haven't been told it is wrong-is it?<br /><br />JB,<br /><br />I completely respect your choice of beliefs. I know you wouldn't force it on me or anyone else. Nor, would I do so to you.<br /><br />I do believe that the ACLU is forcing their beliefs, or lack of, on the american people. <br /><br />Atheism IS a religion.

 

[wvit100]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Here's my 2 cents.<br /><br />The decision to have the monument removed has nothing to do with being christian or non-christian. Nowhere did the decision say that everyone is not free to place religious symbols in their homes, on private property, in their church, etc. All it said was that the government should not be a party to putting one persons religious beliefs over anothers.<br /><br />I do not believe that religious symbols, and the Ten Commandments are part of the the christian religion, have any place in public buildings. The goverment should not have a part in placing one group above another; be it christians, muslims, blacks, or any other majority or minority.<br /><br />This religious symbol is in the wrong place. It should be placed on private property somewhere.

 

[ob]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

That all still leaves one loose end IMO.So what God are we giving our oath to in a courtroom?The giver of the Ten Commandments or just whatever God we choose.How about the God of dishonesty?Or are all Gods assumed as being good and moral?Do I have the right as an immigrant to China to be offended by a statue of Budah if I am being tried for a crime?Will churches be asked to remove their exterior symbols because they are visible from a public street and may offend a passer by?

 

[SCO]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

As one that believes fervently in seperation of church and state, what is going on is a crazy rejection of the culture that developed here over the last 2 and a quarter centuries by the pc minded folks that consider themselves to be enlightened.

 

[Scoop]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Just because there is an oath to "god" in the courtroom, does not make it right. Just because "In god we trust" is on our money does not make it right. <br /><br />Atheists are not trying to take away your religion. You can practice your religion any way you want, but when those beliefs are backed by the state over my beliefs, or I am forced to pay for their upkeep, then that goes against the constitution of the United States.<br /><br />I am not here telling anyone they cannot hand out their literature, picket, preach in public, or generally do what they want, but it cannot be state sponsored. I do not back the "In god we trust" on our money. In fact, I wonder where the heck the Supreme court was back then.<br /><br />Having someone swear on a bible in court Will make them tell the truth? It would not make me tell the truth. I would tell the truth because telling the truth is one of my values.<br /><br />As for religious values being moral. I agree with that to a point. My values are parallel with a lot of religions and even the bible, but it not because of the bible I have these values. I know of two people in prison right now that murdered their sister-in-law and her 3 year old. They were doing this because "god told them to". Fringe groups of the Mormon church believe that god can speak with individuals directly. These men were very moral, until god spoke to one of them and told him to kill his sister-in-law.<br /><br />Religious people carry out the death penalty all the time, yet one of the 10 commandments says "thou shall not kill." It does not say, unless the person killed first, then you can judge them and kill them.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

JB, you posted, "I will not have Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism or any other religion shoved down my throat and I will not have my government discriminating against me based on my religious beliefs, or lack of same."<br /><br />This is my point exactly. I'll not have atheism crammed-down my throat anymore, under the disguise of "conflicts of church and state" or whatever else. For me personally, the asaults no longer go unchallenged, as long as I live. That was the promise I made to myself last Thursday.<br />I'm not trying to make christians out of the general public or atheists. Let them be just that--- American Atheists, or whatever. I won't push my beliefs in God down anyone's throat.<br />I just want my equal rights to have a sculpture of the ten Commandments, or a painting or other form of artwork to inspire me, and perhaps others, anywhere that calls itself paid for with my money. I firstly feel this is part mine anyhow!<br />I saw a photo of Marilyn Manson hanging on the wall of city hall. I SHOULD'VE created a case out of it.<br />The fact that it is "religious art" should have no bearing on the issue. It harms nobody. It pushes nothing, much less, religion, down anybody's throat in the least. This is an ilusion propagated by those that see it, and are somehow offended by it.<br />If they find it offensive, do not turn your back on them. They may be worshiping something, and we don't know what that something is. Chrystalnacht (SP) happened. Is this happening again in the heart of our own country? It's why I'm upset over the ruling.

 

[JB]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

We don't disagree that much, 12Footer.<br /><br />When my tax money is used to finance a religious symbol placed on public property it violates my religious freedom and the Constitution.<br /><br />A lot of people would disagree with this, but I believe that our founders believed that religion belonged completely seperate from government, that the government should be entirely secular.<br /><br />What those who object to those violations of our Constitution are doing is not attacking religion, they are defending religious freedom against invasion and opression by religion run rampant.<br /><br />So it has been going on for 200 years, that doesn't make it any more right than slavery and segregation, which went on for 200 years also.