Voted Today Topic Deleted?

[Perchoutofwater]

In that you are correct, this was not the intent of the 1st Amendment. However, it is pretty clear that having the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall would indicate a predilection towards a Judeo/Christian point of view and therefore could be intimidating to those not of those faiths. I believe that the current interpretation of the 1st Amendment to prohibit this display is correct.

 

While we're on the topic of the Ten Commandments, why anyone would want them associated with the government in any way is beyond me. There are really only a couple of things in there actually worth mentioning as part of law. Let's take a look, shall we?

 

1. I am the Lord your God You shall have no other gods before me You shall not make for yourself an idol

This is purely religious in context. It's all about this god not wanting you to look at other gods. In fact, it is more like a jealous girlfriend than an all powerful creator of the universe. Personally, I think there are some self esteem issues going on there.

 

2. Do not take the name of the Lord in vain

Again, this is more about a religious issue than a governmental one and this seems more like a human thing than a divine thing. Kinda like bringing your momma into the conversation, it can be guaranteed to start a fight.

 

3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

OK, now this jealous girlfriend wants you to spend a whole day with her on top of things.

 

4. Honor your father and mother

OK, while this is the right thing to do, do we really want to make laws about it? I can see it now," Listen kid, you're gonna honor me with a 10% vig from your paper route or I'm gonna call DCYS."

 

5. You shall not murder

Alright, we finally got to something that we should make a law about. That makes us one for five so far. Now as far as laws go, I don't think that many are going to argue the point that we should have a law against killing people. Except Texas.

 

6. You shall not commit adultery

Hmmm...close, but no cigar. While I happen to believe that if you tell someone that you aren't going to sleep around on them, you should do exactly that, it is not up to the government to enforce what amounts to a verbal agreement. Besides, who's to say that things haven't changed in the time since the agreement was made and the time that it was broken? Let the two individuals work it out amongst themselves, the government has bigger things to worry about.

 

7. You shall not steal

OK, here's another good one. Taking things from another person without their consent is very wrong. At all levels. Laws against this sort of thing are pretty much required. Two for seven.

 

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

This is kind of a gray area here, but I'll give it to you, you really shouldn't lie about your neighbor. You shouldn't lie in general but in legal matters, it is really important to know the truth so this one can go on the books. Three for eight.

 

9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

Ok, there are two aspects of this one and neither are particularly good for the cause of there being laws against it. First of all, if I'm coveting something, that's in my head and in my heart and those are two places that the government just shouldn't be. If I act upon those thoughts, that is a completely different story. If I do act upon this one, there is the whole question of the willingness of the neighbor's wife. If she is willing then that brings us back up to item 4. If she isn't willing, then you would think that item 7 applied in some fashion. However there is also the question of rape and it seems to me really funny that there is no item prohibiting that particular behavior. So we'll say that this item is already covered. Three for nine.

 

10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

Once again, this has already been covered.

 

So really, there isn't much actual value to this list of items from a legal standpoint. Actually putting them on display in a State or Federal building is purely an act of religious marketing.

 

I actually agree with you here to a point. I do not think they should be incorporated in new structures, however I do not think they should be removed form existing one either, particularly when they are historic structures. At the time or nation was founded we were for the most part a Judeo/Chrisitan nation, and that is part of our history.

 

Not that it really matters because I actually agree with you on not placing them in new structures, but I do disagree with your take on 6 and to a lesser degree on 9. If you are married in a traditional ceremony you make verbal covenant in front of witnesses to remain faithful. So basically you've made a verbal contract. If you break a verifiable verbal contract which a marriage ceremony would be then the party that is wronged has a legal grievance. In most states (if not all) adultery is grounds for divorce.

[bpwallace49]

I we wonder why threads get gunned.

 

I am sure the 10 commandments hijack will go well.

 

Moneymakers is getting ready to strike holy vengeance on you all . . . .

[Big John]

I we wonder why threads get gunned.

 

I am sure the 10 commandments hijack will go well.

 

Moneymakers is getting ready to strike holy vengeance on you all . . . .

There was a gunned thread where I ponited out 7 of the 10 commandments he broke.

[Azazello1313]

interesting rundown about the o'donnell first amendment hubub...

 

During a debate at a law school, her opponent, Chris Coons, said that one of the “indispensable principles” of Constitutional law is “the separation of church and state.” Anyone who is familiar with conservative thought on faith and politics will know that this raises a red flag. Christine O’Donnell obviously thought that she might be able to back Coons into a trap.

 

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of Church and State?” she asked O’Donnell. As the video shows, there is laughter and disbelief in the auditorium; you can hear people in the crowd exclaim, “Oh my God!” (Later they say, as though addressing her, “You know nothing! You know nothing!”) (Surveys consistently show that the great majority of people believe “the wall of separation” is in the Constitution; it is a shame that the same must be said of law students.)

 

Coons says this question “reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is, how it is amended, and how it evolves. The first amendment establishes the separation–” here he pauses, and shifts course, “–and the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion, and decisional law by the Supreme Court over many decades clarifies and enshrines that there is a separation of church and state that our church and state must respect.”

 

Coons clearly understands the point she wants to make — that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not actually appear in the First Amendment or anywhere in the Constitution. The “wall of separation” metaphor comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, many years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, to a group of Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut (James Madison also sometimes referred to “the separation of church and state”). O’Donnell is trying to get him to say that “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution. He is trying to avoid saying that, and wants to say instead that the principle of separation has become enshrined as a matter of Constitutional law through later Supreme Court decisions.

 

Thus when O’Donnell presses the issue, saying, “You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”–Coons responds: “The government shall make no establishment of religion.”

 

Those in the crowd, or at least the most vocal among them, clearly do not understand the debate behind the debate. The Huffington Post also shows its ignorance, or its unwillingness to explain the nuances of the issue in the midst of its eagerness to paint O’Donnell as a moron, when it leads off its article:

 

“Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.”

 

Yet these are two different things. Barring the establishment of a state religion is not the same thing as separating religion and government. Religion and government could work together in any number of ways without the establishment of a state church. As Daniel Foster points out, O’Donnell has led two organizations that have lobbied Congress to incorporate Christian values into their legislation; she knows the First Amendment and is aware of debates over the issue.

 

Of course, when you’re in high dudgeon, it’s hard to be corrected. William Saletan at Slate notes how O’Donnell emphasizes the word “first,” and argues she “it’s the citation that surprises her.” She “seems incredulous not just at Coons’ position against government-established religion, but that he bases it on the First Amendment.” To my mind, this is clearly wrong. She is trying to nail him down, trying to get him to say that the first amendment separates church and state. Then she will be able to show that he really doesn’t know what it is in the First Amendment. Coons, to his credit, avoids the trap. Yet he also gives only a very partial recitation of the First Amendment.

 

Behind this little tiff is a serious question – debated not only by the Christine O’Donnells of the world, but also be Supreme Court Justices such as Rehnquist and Scalia. Perhaps a “wall of separation” is not the most helpful metaphor when it comes to the relationship between religious groups and the government. The establishment and free exercise clauses prohibit the state from establishing an official church or from interfering in church matters; they do not prohibit the church from some forms of involvement in government, and that is why “separation” is a dubious metaphor. Even Jefferson, whose skepticism toward orthodox Christianity is well known, attended church services in the capitol. He supported the use of government funds for the construction of churches, for chaplains in the military, and even to support missionaries to Native Americans. None of this made him a Christian Reconstructionist or a Theocrat.

 

The establishment and free exercise clauses are arguably uni-directional; they prevent the state from interfering in the church. The “separation” metaphor is bi-directional; neither side can influence the other. In the context of Jefferson’s broader thought, even he, the coiner of the separation phrase, clearly believed that religion could be involved in some ways in government. And there are indeed two live options on this issue today. Liberals by and large want to minimize the role of religion in the public square. Conservatives believe that religion has a vital, vital role to play in the public square, and that many attempts to chase religion from the public square actually “interfere with the free exercise thereof.” Thus Scalia has objected that the “wall” metaphor has functioned as a “bulldozer” to remove religion from the public square.

 

Unfortunately, Coons was not willing to explain the issue fully, and O’Donnell never did. This is a teachable moment over a legitimate disagreement on the Constitution and constitutional law, but, unsurprisingly, it is passing by with a lot of sound and fury but very little actual edification.

[cre8tiff]

I we wonder why threads get gunned.

 

I am sure the 10 commandments hijack will go well.

 

Moneymakers is getting ready to strike holy vengeance on you all . . . .

[Jules] And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and FURIOUS anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers...[/Jules]

 

Edited November 3, 2010 by cre8tiff

[bpwallace49]

interesting rundown about the o'donnell first amendment hubub...

 

Very interesting take on the subkect az. But why dont you ever post the "cool" articles from his blog?

 

Harry Potter, Waldo, and Jesus

July 31, 2009| View Comments

 

 

 

I can date precisely when my dangerous dalliance with Harry Potter began.

 

I had seen the news stories, of course, which mostly consisted of long lines of nerdy boys and girls waiting outside of bookstores each year in glasses and striped ties. Since Harry Potter bears a striking resemblance to the title character of Where's Waldo?, I could not tell whether these were Harry Potter release parties or Where's Waldo? conventions -- which would, it seemed to me, be exactly contrary to the spirit of Where's Waldo? But no sooner had I begun to separate Harry and Waldo in my mind than I was informed by these reports that I, as a Christian, was supposed to be Gravely Concerned about Harry Potter's corrupting force upon children.

 

I had never met any such Christians, but they must have been out there in droves, because that was all these reporters talked about. Apparently the county franchise of Gravely Concerned Christian Parents was keeping constant surveillance over the local goat populations, fearing bands of children might be roaming the countryside with broomsticks between their legs in search of sacrifices for someone whose name sounded like Lord Value Mart. They had not yet caught any such nefarious bands of prepubescent children -- which was surprising, because it's not easy for ten-year-olds to run with goats slung over their shoulders and broomsticks clutched between their legs -- but the Value Mart got lots of free publicity and the local cow-tipping clubs nearly went out of business.

 

These reports and their solemn warnings still lingered in my memory when, on Thanksgiving in 2002, I first heard Harry Potter read aloud. Living in Princeton, New Jersey, I had been invited to the home of a Christian theologian of formidable reputation. This man, towering in mind and frame (he is closer to seven than six feet in height), discussed football and beer with the same dry, languid world-weariness that characterized his lectures, as though his mind had so penetrated the mysteries of the cosmos that nothing could excite him. Yet when he read Harry Potter, he was animated and joyful.

 

I became Gravely Concerned when I saw goats and pigs watching nervously from a neighbor's yard -- but I was anxious to make a good impression, and his children did not have that look in the eye that children get when they're about to sacrificed hoofed mammals. So I sat and did nothing while this man whom I admired recklessly endangered the spiritual welfare and eternal destiny of his children, the safety of the local goat herds and the future of mom-and-pop stores that cannot compete with Value Mart.

 

It was not difficult to see why his better judgment was overpowered. Rowling's writing is not without its virtues. Every stone at Hogwarts is finely and lovingly crafted. Filled though it is with satanic rituals like Quidditch and the rampant underage drinking of butterbeer, Rowling's world is clearly the product of an endlessly (and suspiciously?) fertile creativity. (Can you say deal with the devil? Judas K. Rowling can. And so can your children.) Some of her characters are archetypes, some caricatures, yet those who occupy the emotional heart are so familiar you might have known them in school. Rowling spins a new world into being, yet never lets it lose its emotional axis; she expands the sphere of the imagination with dragons and dementors, gryphons and grindylows, yet the center always holds in universally human experiences of growing up, falling in love, facing fears, confronting death.

 

So, with my moral reflexes dulled by tryptophan and a bottle of Guinness, I relaxed the spiritual musculature that protects the Christian from demonic influence. In retrospect it is clear that Satan was at work, or at least Lord Value Mart, for even my intellectual pride softened its usual protest. I was exchanging Kierkegaard for Kreacher, Levinas for Longbottom, Camus and Sartre for Crabbe and Goyle -- and I felt no shame. I should have known I was under some sort of Confundus charm when Dobby seemed like the height of comic genius. But I was led astray. If this renowned theologian could delight in Harry Potter, then certainly I could do the same with no loss of self-respect.

 

Thus began my terrifying descent into Potter-mania.

[Yukon Cornelius]

In that you are correct, this was not the intent of the 1st Amendment. However, it is pretty clear that having the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall would indicate a predilection towards a Judeo/Christian point of view and therefore could be intimidating to those not of those faiths. I believe that the current interpretation of the 1st Amendment to prohibit this display is correct.

 

While we're on the topic of the Ten Commandments, why anyone would want them associated with the government in any way is beyond me. There are really only a couple of things in there actually worth mentioning as part of law. Let's take a look, shall we?

 

1. I am the Lord your God You shall have no other gods before me You shall not make for yourself an idol

This is purely religious in context. It's all about this god not wanting you to look at other gods. In fact, it is more like a jealous girlfriend than an all powerful creator of the universe. Personally, I think there are some self esteem issues going on there.

 

2. Do not take the name of the Lord in vain

Again, this is more about a religious issue than a governmental one and this seems more like a human thing than a divine thing. Kinda like bringing your momma into the conversation, it can be guaranteed to start a fight.

 

3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

OK, now this jealous girlfriend wants you to spend a whole day with her on top of things.

 

4. Honor your father and mother

OK, while this is the right thing to do, do we really want to make laws about it? I can see it now," Listen kid, you're gonna honor me with a 10% vig from your paper route or I'm gonna call DCYS."

 

5. You shall not murder

Alright, we finally got to something that we should make a law about. That makes us one for five so far. Now as far as laws go, I don't think that many are going to argue the point that we should have a law against killing people. Except Texas.

 

6. You shall not commit adultery

Hmmm...close, but no cigar. While I happen to believe that if you tell someone that you aren't going to sleep around on them, you should do exactly that, it is not up to the government to enforce what amounts to a verbal agreement. Besides, who's to say that things haven't changed in the time since the agreement was made and the time that it was broken? Let the two individuals work it out amongst themselves, the government has bigger things to worry about.

 

7. You shall not steal

OK, here's another good one. Taking things from another person without their consent is very wrong. At all levels. Laws against this sort of thing are pretty much required. Two for seven.

 

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

This is kind of a gray area here, but I'll give it to you, you really shouldn't lie about your neighbor. You shouldn't lie in general but in legal matters, it is really important to know the truth so this one can go on the books. Three for eight.

 

9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

Ok, there are two aspects of this one and neither are particularly good for the cause of there being laws against it. First of all, if I'm coveting something, that's in my head and in my heart and those are two places that the government just shouldn't be. If I act upon those thoughts, that is a completely different story. If I do act upon this one, there is the whole question of the willingness of the neighbor's wife. If she is willing then that brings us back up to item 4. If she isn't willing, then you would think that item 7 applied in some fashion. However there is also the question of rape and it seems to me really funny that there is no item prohibiting that particular behavior. So we'll say that this item is already covered. Three for nine.

 

10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

Once again, this has already been covered.

 

So really, there isn't much actual value to this list of items from a legal standpoint. Actually putting them on display in a State or Federal building is purely an act of religious marketing.

Hieratic

[Kid Cid]

Hieratic

I am rather proud of that title.

[tosberg34]

That's a nice way of putting it. I don't like the threads being deleted either just like when they were also being zapped the day after Obama won.

 

The I voted thread had nothing offensive or any bickering at all when I went to bed last night.

 

And the other thread, beyond tosberg's child like chivesiness that no-one bit on, was civil also.

 

We are one, you and I. Is it that hard to believe? you call me a dush, you are calling yourself a dush.

Edited November 4, 2010 by tosberg34

[rocknrobn26]

[Jules] And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and FURIOUS anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers...[/Jules]

 

 

Jules????? OUR JULES???? She never said that.....ahhhh....wait a sec.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ref to "Pulp Fiction".....never mind.