Originally posted by kiwi
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
After 10 years of bein absent ...
Collapse
X
-
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
-
Originally posted by Kheldarson View PostI don't see a problem with having copies of all the major past law systems in courthouses. It makes sense. Modern law is a continuation of our historical past, religious or otherwise.
US Constitution disagrees with you
Establishment Clause
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.
"I am thy lord thy God thou shalt have no other Gods before me"
Now tell me what Secular purpose does that religious idea serve?
display or ownership of the Ten Commandments by a city is unconstitutional according to a FEDERAL JUDGE
Comment
-
The Code of Hammurabi isn't based on religion, so having it as a 'monument' in a government institution would not be against the doctrine of Separation of Powers.
Having one religion's basic tenets on display is.
Simple
(just in case it wasn't clear, that means it has no 'right' to be there. It should have the appearance of impartiality)ZOE: Preacher, don't the Bible got some pretty specific things to say about killing?
SHEPHERD BOOK: Quite specific. It is, however, Somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jackfaire View PostLetting laws be determined by one religion is bad practice. Also my direct ancestors were puritans and they were wrong.
Originally posted by Vagabond View PostFair enough ArcadeMan & Jackfaire, I concede.
AdminAssistant-
Having the 5 Pillars of Islam there I wouldn't see a problem with either, nor the Code of Hammurabi. Although, a framed poster on a wall I would not call a monument.Originally posted by BlaqueKatt View PostUS Constitution disagrees with you
Establishment Clause
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.
Originally posted by AdminAssistant View PostEh, the Founding Fathers were Deists not Fundamentalists.
Originally posted by jackfaire View PostIt's not the content of the Amendments that makes people nervous it's the source.We may have come out of the kitchen, but we still know where the sharp objects are kept.
"Well-behaved women rarely make history." - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fryk View PostDopey question, but if you had the tenets of all religions on display (theoretically) wouldn't that NOT count as establishing or endorsing any particular one? Not that it would satisfy the christians. Not that THAT bothers me in any way.All units: IRENE
HK MP5-N: Solving 800 problems a minute since 1986
Comment
-
Originally posted by Vagabond View PostYes, I just chopped out 7 of the commandments. These are the ones I think that would most directly impact other people. I think those 3 are a sound base for laws. I believe you should not have a law unless it is clearly defined and enforceable.
Originally posted by Fryk View PostDopey question, but if you had the tenets of all religions on display (theoretically) wouldn't that NOT count as establishing or endorsing any particular one? Not that it would satisfy the christians. Not that THAT bothers me in any way.I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others. For example, I would not burn a flag, but neither would I put one out. -Garry Shandling
You can't believe in something you don't. -Ricky Gervais
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlaqueKatt View PostEstablishment Clause
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.Originally posted by Fryk View PostDopey question, but if you had the tenets of all religions on display (theoretically) wouldn't that NOT count as establishing or endorsing any particular one? .
Originally posted by draggar View PostWasn't the point of it being there was to show historical documents - and isn't this one of the most known historical document there - regardless of religion?
The declaration of independence in the national archives is an "historical document"
historical document - writing having historical value (as opposed to fiction or myth etc.) and considering the ONLY place the "ten Commandments" are mentioned are in a religious text-NOT a historical text* they are NOT in any way shape or form an "historical document".
*no outside sources confirm anything in the bible-therefore it cannot be proven to be factual and historical-you cannot use a source to prove itself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlaqueKatt View Postwhat secular purpose does it serve?I am a sexy shoeless god of war!
Minus the sexy and I'm wearing shoes.
Comment
-
It's that pesky first amendment that gets to me, basically 'my way or the highway! love: Christianity"
The question isn't whether or not there's a possible secular purpose, rather whether or not there's a possible religious purpose. Either way, putting up the ten commandments especially as the root of modern law basically says 'this religion is more important than the others' which is, quite simply, not allowed.
There were laws against murder and theft long before the ten commandments, if anything they should put up a replica of Hammurabi's code.All units: IRENE
HK MP5-N: Solving 800 problems a minute since 1986
Comment
-
There is no valid reason why only the one religions set of rules should be displayed in a court.
A court should be, and should be seen to be, totally impartial. There should be no leaning nor bias towards any religion, colour, creed or any other influence. A courts role is to act as an impartial mediator and decision maker.
Having only a christian set of values displayed erodes this.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. Robert Peel
Comment
Comment