Quoting:

Funny thing: In my paper today (I don't know if it was in any other paper but...) there was a man praying by the slabs wearing a t-shirt that read "Homosexuality is sin. Islam is a lie. Abortion is murder." In my opinion, not the best way to get people to take your cause seriously.
End Quote

That pic was in our paper too. I noticed that a lot of people seem to be praying at it. My opinion is that it is a courthouse, not a church. There is the seperation of Church and State that MUST be observed or else it is meaningless. Would a Muslim feel they are given a fair trial if they had to appear in that courthouse-run by Christians? I don't know. One thing that people in this country has to realize that NOT EVERY IS A CHRISTIAN! I am not a Christian myself. I repect the Christian religions and I hope that they respect mine. What would people say if I put up a plaque with the Wiccan Creed and a pentagram on it? Or what if a Buddist put up a statue of Budda? Or how about if a Muslim put up exerpts from the Koran? It really is the same thing.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with have a statue with the Ten Commandments on it but NOT at a courthouse. That is really an inapproprate place to have it.


Cat

Quoting:



That pic was in our paper too. I noticed that a lot of people seem to be praying at it. My opinion is that it is a courthouse, not a church. There is the seperation of Church and State that MUST be observed or else it is meaningless. Would a Muslim feel they are given a fair trial if they had to appear in that courthouse-run by Christians? I don't know. One thing that people in this country has to realize that NOT EVERY IS A CHRISTIAN! I am not a Christian myself. I repect the Christian religions and I hope that they respect mine. What would people say if I put up a plaque with the Wiccan Creed and a pentagram on it? Or what if a Buddist put up a statue of Budda? Or how about if a Muslim put up exerpts from the Koran? It really is the same thing.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with have a statue with the Ten Commandments on it but NOT at a courthouse. That is really an inapproprate place to have it.


Cat
End Quote

Cat basically said everything else I said.


By the way, in case anyone didn't know, my first post was sarcastic, in a way.

Quoting:
Yeah, they sorta took "under God" out of it too.

The First Amendment dictates that the Congress can't establish a national religion, but it doesn't say that people can't celebrate their religions either.  I don't see anything wrong with a primarily Christian state celebrating their morals and heritage with a statue...but then again I guess I just don't care.
End Quote

In fact, it does.  "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free excercise there of....  So, in one short passage, it creates what legal scholars have described as a wall between the secular state and personal religion.  What christians display on their lawns at xmass is their choice.  What officials of the state display on secular space is a different matter.  

In our town, the local clergy somehow got permission for the last couple of years to use the village green for revival meetings.  I objected to this use of secular space for explicitly religious purposes (I offered my back yard as an alternative).  I'm not anti-religious, I just think it should be kept out of the public domian.

Quoting:
... a pentagram for Satanists...
End Quote

Wiccans and the pentagon are not necessarilly satanists.  Many, Cat included I think, would object to being charactorized in that way.  I don't want to start a fight here, but you should be careful how you charactorize people who's beliefs you don't really understand.  While I recopgnize the "equal opportunity" suggested by your post, I disagree, and think that the better solution is to bar religious imagery in or on tax supported property.

Quoting:


In fact, it does.  "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free excercise there of....    
End Quote

*ahem*

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.

Quoting:


Wiccans and the pentagon are not necessarilly satanists.  Many, Cat included I think, would object to being charactorized in that way.  I don't want to start a fight here, but you should be careful how you charactorize people who's beliefs you don't really understand.  While I recopgnize the "equal opportunity" suggested by your post, I disagree, and think that the better solution is to bar religious imagery in or on tax supported property.
End Quote

I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to offend. 'Twas a lack of education on my part, a friend told me a pentagram represented Satanism and some other symbol (can't remember off the top of my head) represented Wiccans. I'm so sorry about that though, I have a friend who is Wiccan and I'm sure she wouldn't appriciate my words...

Meanwhile, I did say in my second post that my first post was pretty much sarcastic...I guess a " ::)" emoticon would've helped, and I guess my post sounded more serious then intended.


That being said, I apologize for any offensive remarks, misinterpretations or confusion that I've made or caused. :-[

Quoting:


I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to offend. 'Twas a lack of education on my part, a friend told me a pentagram represented Satanism and some other symbol (can't remember off the top of my head) represented Wiccans. I'm so sorry about that though, I have a friend who is Wiccan and I'm sure she wouldn't appriciate my words...

Meanwhile, I did say in my second post that my first post was pretty much sarcastic...I guess a " ::)" emoticon would've helped, and I guess my post sounded more serious then intended.


That being said, I apologize for any offensive remarks, misinterpretations or confusion that I've made or caused. :-[End Quote

Off topic-a pentagram with the point upward, is Wiccan (the top point repersenting the creator or the Goddess). A pentagram with the point downward is Satanism-just like the upside cross.

Back to topic.


Cat

Quoting:


I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to offend. 'Twas a lack of education on my part, a friend told me a pentagram represented Satanism and some other symbol (can't remember off the top of my head) represented Wiccans. I'm so sorry about that though, I have a friend who is Wiccan and I'm sure she wouldn't appriciate my words...

Meanwhile, I did say in my second post that my first post was pretty much sarcastic...I guess a " ::)" emoticon would've helped, and I guess my post sounded more serious then intended.


That being said, I apologize for any offensive remarks, misinterpretations or confusion that I've made or caused. :-[End Quote

The Satanic symbol is a pentagram with a picture of Satan in the middle. A pentagram by itself (I think) represents the five elements of the world and refers more to the powers of nature. (Again, I think...) Cat, back me up on this, am I close?

Quoting:

The Satanic symbol is a pentagram with a picture of Satan in the middle. A pentagram by itself (I think) represents the five elements of the world and refers more to the powers of nature. (Again, I think...) Cat, back me up on this, am I close?
End Quote

Like I said in my last post, the top point represents the Goddess and you are right that the other four represents the elements-Earth, Wind, Fire, and Air.


Sorry, to get off-topic, just have to enlighten folks.  ;)


Cat

Quoting:
(edited by me for clarity) Judge Moore: let's hope that he practices what he preaches or else the piece of stone that was hanging from his courtroom is worthless.    

Having said that, the Oath of Truth that is asked for a witness in a trial does say "so help us, God".  
End Quote

It isn't hanging, it is very heavy and is in a very public place in the building - the rotunda I think - not his courtroom.

Witnesses are asked to "swear or affirm", and need not touch the bible, at least in Vermont, the only place I ever gave testimony at a court proceeding.

Quoting:

Christians, how safe would you feel if you turned up to court to defend a case against a muslim and found the judge quoting the Koran?
End Quote

Well, considering there are probably a lot more atheistic judges than Muslim (or Christian) judges, I would be thankful that at least this one is religious... ;)

And, I think the question would be more accurate if the phrase "found the judge quoting the Koran?" was replaced with "found a statue of the Koran in the lobby of the courthouse."

Anyway...I would expect to be treated fairly under the laws of the United States. Just because the judge is a Muslim or Christian or atheist should make no difference. Besides, we all know that everyone is always treated fairly in court, don't we... ;)

Modified to add:

Now it's my turn. Tao, which type of judge would you rather try your case.

1. A Christian judge who fears God and whose main concern is the truth and upholding what is right.

2. An atheistic judge who may or may not give a rat's patootie about your case and whether or not you fry unjustly?

Quoting:

Now it's my turn. Tao, which type of judge would you rather try your case.

1. A Christian judge who fears God and whose main concern is the truth and upholding what is right.

2. An atheistic judge who may or may not give a rat's patootie about your case and whether or not you fry unjustly?
End Quote

You're stereotyping athiests. Not many athiests are unethical like that. I personally don't believe (in God), and I can guarentee I'd be as fair as the next guy.

You sound awfully misinformed about athiests.

Quoting:



You're stereotyping athiests. Not many athiests are unethical like that. I personally don't believe (in God), and I can guarentee I'd be as fair as the next guy.

You sound awfully misinformed about athiests.
End Quote

You are quite right, Junior. That was unfair of me to portray atheists the way I did. Please forgive me.

I guess my point is that I would rather have a religious judge than a non-religious one. But I know some would not agree.

Quoting:


You are quite right, Junior. That was unfair of me to portray atheists the way I did. Please forgive me.

I guess my point is that I would rather have a religious judge than a non-religious one. But I know some would not agree.
End Quote

You are forgiven. ;D


I don't think it matters as much to if they're religious or non-religious; but on their morals and ethics. I would rather have a fair judge, then an "evil" (for lack of a better word) one.

Quoting:


You are quite right, Junior. That was unfair of me to portray atheists the way I did. Please forgive me.

I guess my point is that I would rather have a religious judge than a non-religious one. But I know some would not agree.
End Quote

I do understand your point but let me ask you a question. Would you rather have a judge who knows the laws of the U.S. and the Constitution and judges according to that no matter what his/her religion (or lack there of) or someone who bases judgements based solely on the Bible regardless of what the Constitution says?


Cat

Quoting:



I do understand your point but let me ask you a question. Would you rather have a judge who knows the laws of the U.S. and the Constitution and judges according to that no matter what his/her religion (or lack there of) or someone who bases judgements based solely on the Bible regardless of what the Constitution says?


Cat
End Quote

Soley on the Bible, but....
I would have to say the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament due to the fact that the Ten commandments are the old Law and Christ's teachings are the new law. Also again however, this may be immposible because, Christ's Laws have more to do with your thoughts being impure, so that would be difficult to "Prove"

I'll put it this way. I believe that the Constitution is Inspired of God. Which means if Church and State must be seperated than they must be seperated. Other wise you will have another Salem Witch Trial...

Quoting:


Soley on the Bible, but....
I would have to say the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament due to the fact that the Ten commandments are the old Law and Christ's teachings are the new law. End Quote

The problem I have with this is that much of the Old Testament is still held to be law despite much of it being contradicted by the New Testament. So does a judge base his/hers judgements on the Bible as a whole, or just the parts of it that align with their own beliefs? When you have laws like those in Leviticus that have no bearing whatsoever on modern society still being preached as Gospel even when the teachings of Jesus contradict many of them, how does one base their judgement on the Bible alone? The two major chapters of the Christian church can't even decide on what the 10 Commandments actually are (they're even different from the original Jewish ones). I'd hate to think about how confused the Church would be like if we had a polytheistic religion like Hindu!

Quoting:



I do understand your point but let me ask you a question. Would you rather have a judge who knows the laws of the U.S. and the Constitution and judges according to that no matter what his/her religion (or lack there of) or someone who bases judgements based solely on the Bible regardless of what the Constitution says?


Cat
End Quote

Hi Cat. I smell a trap, but will answer your question anyway... ;D

I will choose the judge who bases judgements on the Bible, because I trust that God's judgements are perfect and righteous.

Quoting:
Soon, they could be saying don't have a manger or mother mary statue outside your house on Christmas!?!
End Quote

There already is a big flap about nativity scenes at Christmas.

Quoting:



I do understand your point but let me ask you a question. Would you rather have a judge who knows the laws of the U.S. and the Constitution and judges according to that no matter what his/her religion (or lack there of) or someone who bases judgements based solely on the Bible regardless of what the Constitution says?


Cat
End Quote

Sorry, but I think Cat asked the wrong question.  Frankly, I don't care what a judge's personal religious views are.  I want judges who know the law (not of Leviticus but of the United States and the state where they practice).  Justice Moore, by insaitising on the 10 commandments, is suggesting, I think, that his version of "higher law" should take precident over state and national law.  I DO recognize a law higher than either state or national, but not one based on anyone's version of the bible.  Jim Crow laws were common for too many years, but the way to fight them was through the legal process.  Judge Moore's belief in the 10 commandments MIGHT lead him to justice, or to retribution, and injustice.  The point is that his personal religious beliefs should not be displayed in the rotunda of the courthouse AS IF they were the guiding "rules of law" on which he bases his findings.  In many ways, this is a symbolic issue, and as Joh Harvey said, not as important as other issues.  Check out the link below.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/Editorials/Article/70621.html

Quoting:


Sorry, but I think Cat asked the wrong question.  Frankly, I don't care what a judge's personal religious views are.  I want judges who know the law (not of Leviticus but of the United States and the state where they practice).  Justice Moore, by insaitising on the 10 commandments, is suggesting, I think, that his version of "higher law" should take precident over state and national law.  I DO recognize a law higher than either state or national, but not one based on anyone's version of the bible.  Jim Crow laws were common for too many years, but the way to fight them was through the legal process.  Judge Moore's belief in the 10 commandments MIGHT lead him to justice, or to retribution, and injustice.  The point is that his personal religious beliefs should not be displayed in the rotunda of the courthouse AS IF they were the guiding "rules of law" on which he bases his findings.  In many ways, this is a symbolic issue, and as Joh Harvey said, not as important as other issues.  Check out the link below.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/Editorials/Article/70621.html

End Quote

That was the point I was trying to make with that question. The laws of the U.S. are NOT based on the Bible-they are based on English Common Law and precidence law. If a judge decided to use the Bible as a means of making judgements INSTEAD of the Constitution, then he/she is not acting in the best interest of the nation. The thing is, we as citizens have freedoms we are guaranteed under the Constitution but the Bible says is wrong/a sin, or whatever.


Cat

Quoting:
Hi Cat and Carlos...

I do agree that our secular courts must pass out judgements according to US law. But how did we go from a statue in a lobby to suggesting that Judge Moore is using Biblical law to judge instead of American law? Has anyone passing through Judge Moore's courtroom complained of this? Has it even been suggested by anyone that this is actually happening? If so, this is the first I've heard of it.


End Quote

Seems to me that he is advocating for Judeo-Christian religion.  He has said that he is guided by the 10 Commandments.  Both slippery slopes in a secular state.

Quoting:
I do agree that our secular courts must pass out judgements according to US law. But how did we go from a statue in a lobby to suggesting that Judge Moore is using Biblical law to judge instead of American law? End Quote

Me thinks that if he was using American Law, he would have complied, and had the monument thingy removed. ;D

Quoting:


Seems to me that he is advocating for Judeo-Christian religion.  He has said that he is guided by the 10 Commandments.  Both slippery slopes in a secular state.
End Quote

I see your point Carlos, but the people who voted Judge Moore in knew exactly what they were getting. He has been a proponent of the commandments since before he was elected. The statue has now been removed, so all can now feel safe.  ;D kidding!!!

I tend to think that if he wanted to advocate his religion through his rulings, he would have done so without calling so much attention to himself by putting a 2-ton statue in his lobby.

Quoting:


Me thinks that if he was using American Law, he would have complied, and had the monument thingy removed. ;D
End Quote

You know, I admire Moore's guts in this thing, but I actually agree that he should have removed it when ordered to do so, then continue his fight to put the statue back. That would not only have complied with American law, it would have complied with the Bible, which teaches us to obey those in authority over us.

Quoting:
If you're conservative minded, or rather xenophobic, you'll want that rock with those 10 commandments to stay.  You probably want to show off how how much faith and/or religion you have by protesting this and getting arrested for all the world to see.  Now you see people wanting to remove this rock, and this is your chance to use this moment as your rallying cry excuse that the tyrannical leftists and evil Federal Government are finally "taking over" or "removing God" from everything.

If you're liberal minded, then you understand that a rock with some words on it doesn't make you a better person.  Not unless you are genuinely living by those commandments.  Do you really care about those words?  Or are you doing this for show?  Or xenophobic reasons?  I don't think God really cares about this.  Not to mention that that tablet shouldn't be in federal building.
End Quote

I understand your points as well, Paul (I had to look up xenophobe!  ;D )

I think Moore's motives were more to do with US Gov't. being able to acknowledge God, rather than showing off his faith. Like it or not, our founding fathers believed in God, and made mention of Him quite often. The Constitution, among other documents, acknowledge our Creator as the giver of life.

Of course, now there are many who do not believe in God, so they want all reference to Him done away with. I can understand this. I have no problem with the removal of all references to God from all areas of government. I know it is bound to happen anyway. Like you say, my faith is in God, not some 2 ton stone monument.

But this country was founded by Christians who practiced their faith in everyday life. It was natural for them to include God in everything they did, including writing up the documents that are the foundations of our great nation. Christianity is part of our history, and some of us would like to remember that.

Quoting:


In fact, it does.  "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free excercise there of....  So, in one short passage, it creates what legal scholars have described as a wall between the secular state and personal religion.  
End Quote

Sorry DC I've got to correct you on this point.  I know you posted this a while ago but I couldn't find the reference I needed. I'll quote my source and then give their further reference.

"Consider the wording of the First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof;....'  Note in particular those first five words: 'Congress shall make no law...'  The founders were not trying to free America from such restrictions, but merely endeavouring to ensure that matters of censorship and personal liberty were left to the states"

I got that from 'Made in America' by Bill Bryson who sitesCensorship: The Search For The Obscene by Ernst and Schwartz as his source.

I guess in this case it possibly makes no difference as the state is saying the statue should be removed.  But it does change some of the arguments made I think.

Quoting:


Sorry DC I've got to correct you on this point.  I know you posted this a while ago but I couldn't find the reference I needed. I'll quote my source and then give their further reference.

"Consider the wording of the First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof;....'  Note in particular those first five words: 'Congress shall make no law...'  The founders were not trying to free America from such restrictions, but merely endeavouring to ensure that matters of censorship and personal liberty were left to the states"

I got that from 'Made in America' by Bill Bryson who sitesCensorship: The Search For The Obscene by Ernst and Schwartz as his source.

I guess in this case it possibly makes no difference as the state is saying the statue should be removed.  But it does change some of the arguments made I think.


End Quote

I understand your point, Karen, but there is another passage you need to take into account.  The Constitution superceeds all other law, so the likelyhood of a state being able to proclaim a state religion and compell acceptance is, I think, not likely to meet constitutional muster.

Quoting:


*ahem*

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.
End Quote

Thanks for the backup Karen, but as you see, I said this almost 2 weeks ago ;)  Oh well.