Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

After 10 years of bein absent ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by kiwi View Post
    I personally believe that religion has no place in a government run office/court/etc
    Pretty much sums up my opinion because...religion DOESN'T have a place in a government run office/court/etc.
    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

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Kheldarson View Post
      I 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
      Registered rider scenic shore 150 charity ride

      Comment


      • #18
        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by jackfaire View Post
          Letting laws be determined by one religion is bad practice. Also my direct ancestors were puritans and they were wrong.

          Originally posted by Vagabond View Post
          Fair 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 Post
          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.
          Like BlaqueKatt, and several courts, said, the posting of tenets from any religion is unconstitutional.


          Originally posted by AdminAssistant View Post
          Eh, the Founding Fathers were Deists not Fundamentalists.
          Funny how people manage to miss that, huh? It's kind of fun to remind people that a lot of them were Freemasons. Scares the hell out of 'em for some reason.

          Originally posted by jackfaire View Post
          It's not the content of the Amendments that makes people nervous it's the source.
          "Commandments" not "Amendments".
          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


          • #20
            Dopey 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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Fryk View Post
              Dopey 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.
              It's just that it's basically impossible to display all of them, there are too many once the more marginal or sidelined religions are taken into account. Chances of catching shit from those small groups is rather low, but still the spirit of the matter is that religion is not to be endorsed at all. Especially when you consider that it's also nigh impossible to truly display all of said tenets without favoring a few over the others for whatever reason intentional or not...
              All units: IRENE
              HK MP5-N: Solving 800 problems a minute since 1986

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Vagabond View Post
                Yes, 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.
                And under our secular system they would still be illegal, even if the 10 commandments never existed.

                Originally posted by Fryk View Post
                Dopey 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 wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that. Though I don't think any religious displays are particularly appropriate in any government building, let alone a courthouse. That said, you won't find me out screaming in protest about it, either. I think there are more important things to be spending our tax money on. 10 years of arguing over this is ridiculous.
                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


                • #23
                  Wasn'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?

                  I don't have an issue with historical documents at court houses.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BlaqueKatt View Post
                    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 Fryk View Post
                    Dopey 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? .
                    what secular purpose does it serve?

                    Originally posted by draggar View Post
                    Wasn'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.
                    Registered rider scenic shore 150 charity ride

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      It might not be historical from a biblical source, but since it's been used since at least the 4th century AD, I'd say it's pretty historical. I was thinking about more of an artistic/historical thing, like a mural or something.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Well, considering the 10 commandments were based off of the purifications of Ma'at from Egypt, why not just put those up? Would every one be okay with that since it's historical?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I'd be fine with it. Really, the more, the merrier, I say.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by BlaqueKatt View Post
                            what secular purpose does it serve?
                            Considering that most of the commandments are laws now it serves a secular purpose of being one of the origins of modern laws, however, there are a bunch of others that should go up along side them in that case.
                            I am a sexy shoeless god of war!
                            Minus the sexy and I'm wearing shoes.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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


                              • #30
                                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

                                Working...
                                X