Yet another frivolous lawsuit

[ob]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Scoop ,I don't know what part of the Constitution you people keep refering to that is suppose to protect whatever it is that is being violated against your beliefs.You refer to the Constitution as though all of the different interpretations of what is religious persecution is being strayed from yet you state that just because we give an oath to God or "in God we trust" is printed on our currency ,that doesn;t make it right.The guys that wrote and signed the Constitution that you demand be adhered to are the same ones that put the word God in our courtrooms and on our currency.Please explain in detail to me what makes it wrong.I don't get it.Is anyone truly being offended by a cross or a plaque?I don't think so.Is the presence of one in a public place creating a secular society?Not any more than someone demanding that it be removed forcing their beliefs on me.I'll just bet that there are more numbers of people that would replace the plaque than there are others who would demand that it stay out.Of course it always seems that the special interest groups that whine about nothing get their way.This new way of interpreting things seems to have created a society that thinks that they are in complete control of their destiny.May God have mercy on you.And ,he will.

 

[Scoop]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Ob, the words "in god we trust" were put on our currency in the 1950s. In fact there have been many currencies before that including ones that were put out by the banks themselves before we had a national currency but after our constitution was written and ratified.<br /><br />I don't know when the swearing on the bible practice was introduced in the court system. It is my point, that just because I swear on the bible doesn't mean I am going to tell the truth. The bible could mean everything to me or it could mean nothing to me depending on my religion or many other factors.<br /><br />I am not offended by a cross or a plaque, but they do not belong in government. It is your right to put them in your yard, wear them on your shirt, hand them out on the street or even hand them out in public buildings if permitted to hand anything out in a public building. I will fight for your right to do so.<br /><br />I will fight for the right not to have a state sponsored religion. If a government body sets up space that we all pay for to promote religion or its values, then that is a problem. It is not an attack on your religion. I will fight for anyone to be able to practice their religion and do so in public as long as it is not state sponsored.<br /><br />Am I religious? No one here really knows. I may hindu, I may be a buddist, I may worship the earth and nature, or I may be the dreaded athiest. I have the right to be what I want and not have my tax dollars go to support any religon be it mine or yours. By having a monument on public land, it violates the constitution.<br /><br />I did notice no one touched the question of whether they would fight to keep a satanic monument in a public place. As far as a religion, it is a perfectly valid religon as long as it does not encroach upon anyone else's rights. I have known people that worshipped satan. Would you fight for satanists to be able to keep their religious monument in a public building, or would you fight to have it removed. <br /><br />That is the acid test. Are you going to fight for the right to display religious monuments on public ground no matter what religion, or just for yours? If you would fight for removing another religion's monument because you disagree with it's message then, why do you think you should be able to keep yours there?

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

plywoody that 8:22am post was your best ever.<br />It was the first time you ever displayed tolerence and understanding to conservative values.

 

[ob]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Many religions.One God.An atheist has no God or religion therefore needs to have no symbols.I'm through on that.The motto "in God we trust" actually first appeared on a 2 cent coin in 1864.It was not adopted as the paper money motto until 1955.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

JB, the 10 Commandment monument in the courthouse was bought and installed with private money.<br /><br />Based on Constitutional language and intent of the Authors, I see a larger problem with "In God We Trust" on our currency then the Commandment issue.<br /><br />On the same basis The 10 commandments are a states issue and a local community issue. The words aren't offensive, aren't a government mandate. If the words don't offend or hurt, then no one is damaged. No damage, no issue.<br /><br />Again repeating Thomas Jefferson<br />"...(O)ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. In neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (Notes on Virginia, 1785."<br /><br />Very, very clear language.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

The framers simply did not want the central federal government to set up an offcial state religion. They did not try to eliminate or itend to elimiate God from the government. They just didn't want a church of the US as there was a church of England. They knew from history, the problems that caused in Europe for centuries and they did not want to repeat the same mistakes in the new world.<br /><br />All the rest of this ia just a long struggle the left has been engaged in since the time of Marx - to eliminate all religion as Lenin did in the USSR.<br /><br />Anybody offended by the ten commandments in a court house, or the wall of the Supreme Court, or "in God we trust" on our currency or the words "One Nation Under God" in our pledge of allegence, or a manjore scene at Christmas, really has too much time on their hand and is really just looking to provoke a fight.

 

[JGREGORY]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Ralph, 12footer, ob, et al...<br /><br />Maybe I'm missing a bigger issue here, and maybe I am taking the overly simplictic route. Jb has said it so may times and I think he is right on the money.<br /><br />Government, any Government in this great country, has absolutly NO right to promote, demote, sponsor, or eliminate ANY religous group and the symbols of that group. <br /><br />What is more appropriate in any Government building;<br /><br />1. The Ten Commandments, Apostle's Creed, The Lords Prayer, readings from the Koran, reading from the book of Satan(if there is such a item).<br /><br />2. Or the Bill of Rights, any admendments to the Constitution.... to which ALL Legislatures, Congressman, Presidents, and Governors are sworn to uphold and protect on the Bible (a symbol of a higher power)... Maybe if they where reminded why they are there day in/out there would be less bullsh*t legislation and more important work being done.<br /><br />This is a free Country, Freedom bought and paid for by the blood of our forefathers, Who in their infinite wisdom saw what a state sponsered religion leads to, persecution. Therefore, they decided that religion does not belong in any form of government. But also that they would not infringe upon anybody's belief system. <br /><br />If one person is uncomfortable with a religious symbol in a Government(ie public) building (because its a religious symbol) then it does not belong. Because the Government is there to serve the People (all the people). <br /><br />I challenge anybody to tell me they would accept readings from the Koran on Government property. Freedom of religion means just that. The Freedom to practice their religion w/o interference from others. No matter how much you may disagree with their beliefs.

 

[wvit100]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

As far as the court thing about swearing on a bible. You are not required to swear on the bible in court if you do not want to, you can simply afirm that you will tell the truth. There is no "law" that says you have to swear on the bible when you take the stand. Afirming that you know that you have to tell the truth is enough, if you do not you can be found quilty of perjury.

 

[Scoop]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Skinnywater that is very clear language, but it has no bearing. Jefferson does not say that the government can sponsor religion.<br /><br />"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. In neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg"<br /><br />It reaffirms that anyone has a right to express their opinion on religion and it does nothing to hurt him.<br /><br />OB, That is a good fact to know. You are correct that coins have been made by the government before paper money was issued and that statement was introduced onto paper money in 1955.<br /><br />It was not introduced onto money by the people that wrote the constitution.

 

[dakotashooter2]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

While I consider my self a Christian I have come to view the display of the Ten Commandments in a different light. Is it not a historical document? not only to Christians but to the US itself. Religious freedom, particularily Christianity, was one of the driving forces of the early migration and development of this country and thus part of our history. THAT makes the Ten Commandments as much a historical document as much as many of the original charters, the Declaration of Independence or even the Constitution. As a historical document it has the right to be displayed in public places. Someone mentioned the display of the Koran or another religious document with which we do not agree. Ideally they may have as much right to be displayed as the Ten Commandments. The one thing that everyone seems to forget is that we have a democracy in this country meaning the majority rules. Unfortunately it is the minority that is dictating the removal of the Ten Commandments, not exactly the democratic way. And when a majority has expressed that the Koran should be displayed (not likely) it needs to be displayed too. I do not like everything I see displayed in public buildings but there is no right in the constitution that assures me that my personal viewpoints will not be offended. The diplay of or use of a phrase or symbol is not neccessarily an endorsement. The separation of church and state was intended to prevent the church (of any religion) from having a controlling influence in politics as was the case in much of Europe. A minority of extremists is using their own interpretation of the constitution to justify their cause.

 

[ob]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Ditto on all of that dakotashooter2 ,and just in time before I pulled the trigger. <br /><br />Scoop .Then we were both wrong weren't we? <br /><br />I however, will impose my religious teachings and morals to everyone dear to me as family or friend and make no reservations about it.It happens to be the very fiber of what differentiates this compassionate country of ours from the rest of the world.If others choose to get caught up in the nitpicking political correctness movement then so be it.I personally don't feel as if the Ten Commandment plaque that was removed from the courthouse fell under the category of what some have defined as imposing or pushing any particular faith on anyone in breach of their Constitutional rights.You can simply "take it or leave it."<br /><br />I also agree that an individual should not be required to swear on the Bible if he or she is not comfortable with its teachings.Which begs the next question:If there is no place for the Ten Commandment plaque in a courtroom,then all of the diciples of its removal must also be in favor of removing the Bible from the courtroom.A person being questioned under oath in every courtroom in the Nation can "take or leave IT".Or did I miss something?

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Here in Lacrosse Wisconsin the athiests filed suit against the city for having the 10 comandments in a city park here. The city then turned around and sold that small plot of land to a privet owned so they stayed . They are now being sued again for that. What happened when the city was first sued was somebody paid a sign company to make small 3' x 5' signs of the 10 comandments and gave them out for free. They were everywere on everybodys lawn. I wonder how that made some of these people feel who started the suit.

 

[ob]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Bad I hope.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

I got two

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Oh yea by the way its freedom of religion not from religion

 

[ob]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

That's a big 10-4 on that good buddy.<br /><br />Seems we've carelessly strayed from the original topic of this thread so I'll add this.i don't think Al Franken should be required to swear on the Bible when he goes to court.Let him swear on HIS book.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Government, any Government in this great country, has absolutly NO right to promote, demote, sponsor, or eliminate ANY religous group and the symbols of that group

That simply isn't the case. The constitution only prohibits a state sponsored religion. It is silent on the influence of religion in public life.<br /><br />The First Amendment to the Constitution states,<br /><br />

Amendment I<br /><br />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. <br /><br />

The decleration of indpendence, the founding document of this nation states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"<br /><br />So God, the Creator, is a part of the founding philosophy of this country. Why anybody would be offended by any reasonable religious display of any faith, is beyond me. What is imprortant is not the source of the display but the content, the message, of the display.

 

[JGREGORY]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

May the Good Lord help me but I'm about to sound like Plywoody. <br /><br />First for dakota... We do not live in a Democracy, the Magority does not rule here. We live in a Republic, where a minority decide for the majority. If you do not believe that just look at the last national election. And it has happen before ( I forget which President it was that won the Majority of the popular votes but lost the election). Historic Greece was the last Democracy where all issues where brought up for public approval. If you say the pledge of alegience you recite "I Pledge allegience to the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.<br /><br />2. Reference was made to extremist. I am one of the conservetive people I know. Like JB I am more a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist. The less Government interference the better. Religion has absolutly no place in Government. Look through History what has been done in the name of religon. And I am not just talking about Muslims, the Catholic church was once the worst violator of human rights during the crusades. The Spanish and French Monarchies imposed untold suffering because Christianity was the national religion. <br /><br />I am also against abortion because I believe life begins at conception and the Constitution and the Declaration Gaurantee Life, Liberty....<br /><br />Granted the Ten Commandmets are a Historical Document, a Historical Religious Document. If I am wrong in that classification please let me know. <br /><br />I will respectfully agree to disagree.. The Framers of the Constitution where very careful about there wording in article one.<br /><br />

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

With the posting of the 10 Commandments the State is respecting the establishment of religion. Violating Article 1

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

with all of the serious issues facing this country,<br />I can't believe someone would even take the time<br />to complain about a monument in a courthouse,<br />let alone waste the courts valuable time with<br />something that doesn't hurt anyone.<br />what a crock! get a life!

 

[DJ]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Mello,<br /><br />They know that the general public doesn't care, or is too busy to notice.<br /><br />It's incrementalism. Make a move while the opponent is sleeping.