T1B

Supreme Court Rules on Ten Commandments
Monday, June 27, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declared Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses unconstitutional.

The court ruled that in McCreary County v. ACLU that the displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from endorsing or supporting one religion above others.

The court also considered another Ten Commandments-related case, Van Orden v. Perry, involving a display on the grounds of a Texas courthouse. A ruling on that case was also expected Monday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160781,00.html

YES!!!! The SC followed the constitution this time!!! Maybe they learned their lesson with the recent emminent domain issue. So keep your religion where it belongs - IN CHURCH.

KatMode wrote:

Supreme Court Rules on Ten Commandments
Monday, June 27, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declared Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses unconstitutional.

The court ruled that in McCreary County v. ACLU that the displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from endorsing or supporting one religion above others.

The court also considered another Ten Commandments-related case, Van Orden v. Perry, involving a display on the grounds of a Texas courthouse. A ruling on that case was also expected Monday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160781,00.html

YES!!!! The SC followed the constitution this time!!! Maybe they learned their lesson with the recent emminent domain issue. So keep your religion where it belongs - IN CHURCH.

Sorry I am no Christian and I don't agree with this no where in the Constituition does it tell you there is a freedom from religion but freedom of religion. Its time for the liberals to sack up and realize that this country is by far and away a christian majority. Treading dangerous waters here in limiting the vast majority's rights in favor of a small but vocal minority. It worries me as to the future of my own religious practices as this could/may lead down a long and winding road which Christians will not always tolerate.

Exactly, SCS...a big distinction between freedom from and a freedom of.

The Constitution states that the State shall not establish a religion:

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.

The display of the Ten Commandments can hardly be considered as the establishment of a religion by the State.

SunCoastSooner wrote:Its time for the liberals to sack up and realize that this country is by far and away a christian majority.

Majority of this country are tit lovers but we ain't gonna see pics of racks up in the courthouse either.

It worries me as to the future of my own religious practices as this could/may lead down a long and winding road which Christians will not always tolerate.

Dance with snakes all you want.

DrDetroit wrote:Exactly, SCS...a big distinction between freedom from and a freedom of.

The Constitution states that the State shall not establish a religion:

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.

The display of the Ten Commandments can hardly be considered as the establishment of a religion by the State.

Exactly. What are they endorsing? Judaism? Last I checked there is more than Christianity that recognizes the Ten Commandments. Jews, Christians, Mandiens (sp?), ect.

Anyone who makes a claim that most modern legal systems and laws do not derive from the ten commandements and/or Hammurabi's code are making a foolish and ignorant argument.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:Its time for the liberals to sack up and realize that this country is by far and away a christian majority.

Majority of this country are tit lovers but we ain't gonna see pics of racks up in the courthouse either.

It worries me as to the future of my own religious practices as this could/may lead down a long and winding road which Christians will not always tolerate.

Dance with snakes all you want.

Dance with the snakes? Do I look like I from northern Alabama or something?

Boy, after the eminent domain decision and now this one how can anybody say that this isn't a fucking commie Liberal activist court?

BTW, there are a lot of Christians who agree with this decision.

So what if a lot of people agree with this decision, Mikey?

A lot of people agree that the Constitution includes the words "separation of Church and State." So what?

You still cannot rightly argue that the display of the Ten Commandmants represents the establishment of religion by the State.

DrDetroit wrote:So what if a lot of people agree with this decision, Mikey?

A lot of people agree that the Constitution includes the words "separation of Church and State." So what?

You still cannot rightly argue that the display of the Ten Commandmants represents the establishment of religion by the State.

The argument has been made and confirmed by the Supreme Court, idiot.

Confirmed?? How so?

If so, then wtf was this case about if not a display being considered the establishment of a religion?

Who said it wasn't?

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality,"

Answer the question I asked you, Mikey. What was confirmed and how so?

And, if the case was about whether displaying the Commandmants is the equivalent of establishing religion, well...it doesn't take a fucking lawyer/judge to see that it ain't establishment.

Oooops, I guess it does. Much like it takes a lawyer/judge to pretend that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution.

Some of the Founders had it right when casting suspicion upon judges and their position as a co-equal branch. Not only do judges now cast themselves as something above the rest of us, they now operate as an unequal branch of the federal government.

mvscal wrote:

KatMode wrote:YES!!!! The SC followed the constitution this time!!!

No, they didn't.

But, of course, they did. You didn't know that the separation cluase is in the 1st amendment?

DrDetroit wrote:Answer the question I asked you, Mikey. What was confirmed and how so?

And, if the case was about whether displaying the Commandmants is the equivalent of establishing religion, well...it doesn't take a fucking lawyer/judge to see that it ain't establishment.

Oooops, I guess it does. Much like it takes a lawyer/judge to pretend that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution.

Some of the Founders had it right when casting suspicion upon judges and their position as a co-equal branch. Not only do judges now cast themselves as something above the rest of us, they now operate as an unequal branch of the federal government.

Read the SCOTUS decision.

Five out of nine say you're wrong.

The ten commandments are from the cristian bible.

The government cannot favor one religion over another, nor endorse a particular religion.

Therefore, it is absolutey, 100%, not-up-for-debate, no-brainer.

The only thing that should be discussed about it here is the shock that the SC followed the Constitution this time.

The matter never should have been there in the first place. A 4th grader could figure out that it was in violation. Pity the bible-thumpers have to push their bullshit down everyone throats, under the guise of "we're the vast majority in this country. This country was founded on christian principles." When you spew that crap, why do you fools always leave the last part of your ramblings, which is "so therefore, everyone else isn't allowed the Rights guaranteed you in the Bill of Rights."

NEVER should have made it to the SC. Pseudo-christians are doing their very best to fuck this country up. How fucking funny is it that the offensive, pre-emptive warmongering righties are so eager to display the words "thou shalt not kill," and "thou shalt not covet" on buildings they work in? KYOA much? Fucking tards.

Edit: to try and make sense on a monday morning.

DrDetroit wrote: Some of the Founders had it right when casting suspicion upon judges and their position as a co-equal branch. Not only do judges now cast themselves as something above the rest of us, they now operate as an unequal branch of the federal government.

I agree with this. Pretty well sums it up.

In this case, though, they rendered a decision in contrast to that. They finally ignored wha the executive branch wanted, and did the correct thing. I'm suprised they didn't endorse christianity, saying it æffects interstate commerce. That would be their style these days.

What is up with the Christians and their "We must have the ten commandments on display" Deal? There is no state religion, no national religion. This is not a theocracy.

Post your religious crap in your churches, and by that I mean everyone, not just Christians.

Anyone want to bet which will be the first group out side of Christianity to request to have their key documents displayed on public property?

It's a start. :)

Mikey wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Answer the question I asked you, Mikey. What was confirmed and how so?

And, if the case was about whether displaying the Commandmants is the equivalent of establishing religion, well...it doesn't take a fucking lawyer/judge to see that it ain't establishment.

Oooops, I guess it does. Much like it takes a lawyer/judge to pretend that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution.

Some of the Founders had it right when casting suspicion upon judges and their position as a co-equal branch. Not only do judges now cast themselves as something above the rest of us, they now operate as an unequal branch of the federal government.

Read the SCOTUS decision.

Five out of nine say you're wrong.

Like I said, it takes a judge to overturn common sense.

BTW - it appears that the rulings have the effect if saying it's okay to display the Commandments on government property, just not in government property...LOL!!

Hmmm, the Ten Commandmants have been displayed in SCOTUS for how long, Bushice?

The government cannot favor one religion over another, nor endorse a particular religion.

Says who, Dins? Certainly not the Constitution.

The Constitution says what it says...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

DrDetroit wrote:The display of the Ten Commandments can hardly be considered as the establishment of a religion by the State.

So where the fuck are these three Commandments in ANY federal or state law??

1. No Gods before me
2. No taking the Lord's name in vain
3. No graven images

Only 3, count them 3, Commandments are anything close to laws of the U.S. (murder, stealing, lying).

So why the fuck should we post up "rules" that have hardly anything at all to do with the REAL laws of the country?

Dinsdale wrote:The ten commandments are from the cristian bible.

NO actualy they are from the Torah which was carried over in a corrupted form to the Christian bible. Nice try though.

mvscal wrote:

KatMode wrote:So why the fuck should we post up "rules" that have hardly anything at all to do with the REAL laws of the country?

Because, as a Christian nation, it is part of our cultural and legal heritage.

Then put them on display in a museum like all the other artifacts of our culture and heritage.

Ha! Good try, but not quite. :)

You allow that and next up will be the Mormons, who will claim they are an ORIGINAL American Religion, homegrown. This will be followed by the Scientologists, another American Original, followed by the Jehovahs witnesses. Then, as soon as muslims catch up to Christians in terms of overall numbers, they'll demand they get equal time.

KatMode wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:The display of the Ten Commandments can hardly be considered as the establishment of a religion by the State.

So where the fuck are these three Commandments in ANY federal or state law??

1. No Gods before me
2. No taking the Lord's name in vain
3. No graven images

Only 3, count them 3, Commandments are anything close to laws of the U.S. (murder, stealing, lying).

So why the fuck should we post up "rules" that have hardly anything at all to do with the REAL laws of the country?

What Mvscal said.

And Kat, should we then display Commandments 1-5, but not 6-10? :roll:

Displaying them is not the equivalent of establishing religion.

It doesn't get much easier than this, people.

Can we also display the basic tenets of Satanism as well? After all, displaying them is not the equivalent of establishing religion.
It doesn't get much easier than that, right?

Who is "we," Bushice?

What is so bad about displaying the artifacts of our political, legal, and cultural foundations??

Well?

It ain't about the display representing an establishment of religion. It is about being anti-Christian.

mvscal wrote:Because, as a Christian nation, it is part of our cultural and legal heritage

Didn't know that courtrooms stopped upholding the laws and started becoming museums of antiquity.

DrDetroit wrote:Who is "we," Bushice?

fill in any religious group name where the "we" part is.

What is so bad about displaying the artifacts of our political, legal, and cultural foundations??

Hey, Mormonism has been an American cultural institution since the 1830's. What is so bad about displaying the artifacts of our cultural and religious heritage? How about the Quakers, or the Amish? They probably won't ask, but hell, they've been around just as long.

Well?

It ain't about the display representing an establishment of religion. It is about being anti-Christian.

It ain't about being Anti Christian. I don't want ANY religious doctrine shoved in my face.

KatMode wrote:So where the fuck are these three Commandments in ANY federal or state law??

1. No Gods before me
2. No taking the Lord's name in vain
3. No graven images

DrDetroit wrote:...

Thanks for proving my point. 7 out of the Ten Commandments have NOTHING to do with our federal or state laws. Thanks for playing.

Interesting. If displaying them is not an establishment of religion, then you do agree that Satanic tenets can be displayed along with Pagan rules, Muslim rules, and Scientology rules.

Dr. Detroit wrote:It is about being anti-Christian.

WAAAH!!!!
Those meanies won't let me proselytize!!
WAAAH!!!!

Such a baby.

I'm not anti-christian.

I'm pro-Constitution.

mvscal wrote:Is there some legal legacy left to us by Satanists that would be appropriate to honor at our courthouses?

Honor thy Father?

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Can we also display the basic tenets of Satanism as well?

Is there some reason why we should? Is there some legal legacy left to us by Satanists that would be appropriate to honor at our courthouses?

If it wasn't for Satan, Christianity would have no focus? :twisted:

Seriously, I see no reason or purpose to allowing any religion face time on courthouse grounds. Justice is theoretically blind so no monuments to religions of any type should be there to cloud that concept.

Kat:

7 out of the Ten Commandments have NOTHING to do with our federal or state laws.

Even if true, so what?

If displaying them is not an establishment of religion, then you do agree that Satanic tenets can be displayed along with Pagan rules, Muslim rules, and Scientology rules.

No, I don't agree. None of the contributed to the founding of the nation.

Bushice:

Hey, Mormonism has been an American cultural institution since the 1830's. What is so bad about displaying the artifacts of our cultural and religious heritage? How about the Quakers, or the Amish? They probably won't ask, but hell, they've been around just as long.

Political, legal, and cultural foundations...think about it. Then think about what you wrote.

If it wasn't for Satan, Christianity would have no focus?

Start a new thread, dumbass.

Seriously, I see no reason or purpose to allowing any religion face time on courthouse grounds.

Okay.

Justice is theoretically blind so no monuments to religions of any type should be there to cloud that concept.

Red herring, much?

Who is arguing that the display is influencing the outcome of judicial proceedings?

It is the implication that American justice favors Christianity by posting its prime laws on the grounds of said courthouse.

Not to mention that you are opening the doors to every freak religion out there to sue for equal time

Bullshit, Bushice, we're not as stupid as you. We don't see the display as anything more than the display of this nations founding.

Please cite something that suggests the display of the Ten Commandments implies that religion is influencing judicial rulings.

What's up, MissD? Why'd you delete the post re: godhatesfags.com??

DrDetroit wrote:What's up, MissD? Why'd you delete the post re: godhatesfags.com??

Maybe Miss D had second thoughts about giving another one of Fraudo's steller web sites free pub.

RadioFan wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:What's up, MissD? Why'd you delete the post re: godhatesfags.com??

Maybe Miss D had second thoughts about giving another one of Fraudo's steller web sites free pub.

It was the sight for Westboro Baptist Church.

There is a group of people in our area that are fighting to put back a 10 commanments monument in a public park. Westboro and the "Reverand" Fred Phelps have threatened that if they do allow this to occur, they will petition to put a "God Hates Fags" monument right next to it. They'd probably win.

The reason for the deletion is I just didn't think it appropriate to this discussion at hand.

But what I find a little disturbing is that it was posted for less than 20 seconds Detroit still saw it.