You are viewing an archived version of the site which is no longer maintained.
Go to the current live site or the Adventure Gamers forums
Adventure Gamers

Home Adventure Forums Misc. Chit Chat 10 Commandments and the Court


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-06-2005, 08:12 AM   #21
Banned User
 
SakSquash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Paltz...for now...
Posts: 6,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DustCropper
I believe that the Constitution says there should be a separation of Church and State. These people have every right to make a fuss.
Bzzt, wrong. Google "First Amendment" and read it and show me where it says "There must be seperation of Church and State." The idea of SoCaS is something we came up with through time and decide mutually that it was a good idea. It's established through presidence of law.

Anyway, in he end, it's just a friggin statue, and it should be up to the state to decide.
SakSquash is offline  
Old 03-06-2005, 08:38 AM   #22
Bearly Here
 
LauraMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 1,145
Default

No, the intent of the framers was to have a wall of separation between church and state [meaning government]

In placing the "establishment clause" in the constitution - It was Thomas Jeffersons deliberate intent that it was there to keep secular and non-secular matters apart. He wrote a letter to those working on the constituional drafts with him the following,

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Because it is one of the few areas that the founders were quite explicit in their intent - this is why the courts have ruled so uniformly over the centuries - despite the political tilt of any particular court - against government establishment or acts that seem to favor one religion or any religion at all. This isn't something evolved through court decision - it is one of the rare clearly stated articles in the Constitution.
LauraMac is offline  
Old 03-06-2005, 08:48 AM   #23
Banned User
 
SakSquash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Paltz...for now...
Posts: 6,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraMac
No, the intent of the framers was to have a wall of separation between church and state [meaning government]

In placing the "establishment clause" in the constitution - It was Thomas Jeffersons deliberate intent that it was there to keep secular and non-secular matters apart. He wrote a letter to those working on the constituional drafts with him the following,

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Because it is one of the few areas that the founders were quite explicit in their intent - this is why the courts have ruled so uniformly over the centuries - despite the political tilt of any particular court - against government establishment or acts that seem to favor one religion or any religion at all. This isn't something evolved through court decision - it is one of the rare clearly stated articles in the Constitution.
Ok, but I still don't see where it says anything about seperation of church and state. It says that they cannot creat laws that favors one religion over another, but it still doesn't say anything about seperation. But whatever, it doesn't matter how it came about, point is, it's a good idea, and I don't see how a statue of the 10 commandments violates this, but like I said before, to me it should be up to the people to decide. Sadly, it hardly ever turns out that way.
SakSquash is offline  
Old 03-06-2005, 09:00 AM   #24
Bearly Here
 
LauraMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 1,145
Default

Quote:
to me it should be up to the people to decide. Sadly, it hardly ever turns out that way.
And should it? What if the people (majority) thought no blacks should be allowed to vote, use water fountains or travel in the front of the bus? Or if people thought no jews should be allowed in their hotel? (common practice in the 40's - 50's)

The Constitution is there to have stablility in law so that our laws do not change from season to season based upon the ever changing and easily influenced ideas of the majority.

I would not want my rights decided by whatever majority happened to be in play at the moment. Also we live in a nation of "states" What a legal nightmare if every state had it's own self-determined set of rights.

Finally, in terms of logic, if you claim there is no harm in displaying the 10 commandments - yet it offends [obviously as expressed by opponents to these documents being displayed] certain other religions or beliefs not grounded in judaic-christian biblical laws, a more logical question is what harm occurs if they are not displayed? I can't think of any harm that falls on the courts, people or states by not having this document displayed.

Of course if there were some compelling reason why the absence of this document or religious laws would cause harm, that might be at least a logical argument for having them. Right now I just see a preference for them at stake.
LauraMac is offline  
Old 03-06-2005, 09:13 AM   #25
Banned User
 
SakSquash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Paltz...for now...
Posts: 6,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraMac
And should it? What if the people (majority) thought no blacks should be allowed to vote, use water fountains or travel in the front of the bus? Or if people thought no jews should be allowed in their hotel? (common practice in the 40's - 50's)
"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

It's the democratic system. Majority rules. I guess if you believe that all people are inherantly evil, then that may be a problem for you, but I don't believe that.

But you're right about the purpose of the consitiution, but like I said, it does not state the idea of seperation of Church and state.

And god forbid anyone get offended these days. I personally LIKE to be offended, because it provokes thought. And if there are a lot of people offended by it, then fine, take it down, but like someone once said to me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraMac
I would not want my rights decided by whatever majority happened to be in play at the moment.
But to end this, since I HATE political discussion because it turns people into enimies, even though i'd rather gargle glass before i'd go to church, having a statue that says things like "don't kill, don't steal, don't lie" seems like a good idea, and basically harmless. If you don't want to see it, don't look.
SakSquash is offline  
Old 03-06-2005, 09:27 AM   #26
Feind der Anonymitaet!
 
pinkgothic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,898
Send a message via ICQ to pinkgothic Send a message via AIM to pinkgothic Send a message via Yahoo to pinkgothic
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by temporaryscars
It's the democratic system. Majority rules.
Who was it that said "democracy is the worst political system except for all the others" (likely strongly paraphrased)? Heh. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.
__________________
"Me pee stick bigger you pee stick." (credit to, but not attributed to, Jeysie)
"Don't be careful, be immortal."
Bratâ„¢, certified as by Trep
Winner of the Second-Best-Dressed and Non-Specific awards in the Unbiased Impostor Awardsâ„¢, amongst many others.

Non-Conformist to Non-Conformismâ„¢
Internet Explodifierâ„¢ - the best weapon of mass destruction!!!11one
Trademark Overuserâ„¢
pinkgothic is offline  
Old 03-06-2005, 09:36 AM   #27
Banned User
 
SakSquash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Paltz...for now...
Posts: 6,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkgothic
Who was it that said "democracy is the worst political system except for all the others" (likely strongly paraphrased)? Heh. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.
Hahah! I don't know who said it, but it's pretty damn funny, and probably true. If you can find out who said it let me know.
SakSquash is offline  
Old 03-06-2005, 09:36 AM   #28
Bearly Here
 
LauraMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 1,145
Default

Majority rules only in voting and elections. And not always even then

Laws are in place generally for the minority (whoever it happens to be that week) or to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The Majority doesn't need laws to back it up - it is the majority

Hey, that is a good quote, like the source on that myself.
LauraMac is offline  
Old 03-06-2005, 09:42 AM   #29
Banned User
 
SakSquash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Paltz...for now...
Posts: 6,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraMac
Majority rules only in voting and elections. And not always even then

Laws are in place generally for the minority (whoever it happens to be that week) or to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The Majority doesn't need laws to back it up - it is the majority

Hey, that is a good quote, like the source on that myself.
Found it: Winston Churchill

"Nowwww you knowww" - Bill Nye the Science Guy Voice
SakSquash is offline  
Old 03-06-2005, 12:49 PM   #30
merely human
 
Intrepid Homoludens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 22,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by temporaryscars
...i'd rather gargle glass before i'd go to church, having a statue that says things like "don't kill, don't steal, don't lie" seems like a good idea, and basically harmless. If you don't want to see it, don't look.
I do not want to pay for that statue with my own tax dollars. I do not want to 'be represented' as a citizen of the U.S. by a religiously based symbol. Simple as that.
__________________
platform: laptop, iPhone 3Gs | gaming: x360, PS3, psp, iPhone, wii | blog: a space alien | book: the moral landscape: how science can determine human values by sam harris | games: l.a.noire, portal 2, brink, dragon age 2, heavy rain | sites: NPR, skeptoid, gaygamer | music: ray lamontagne, adele, washed out, james blake | twitter: a_space_alien
Intrepid Homoludens is offline  
Old 03-06-2005, 01:26 PM   #31
Banned User
 
SakSquash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Paltz...for now...
Posts: 6,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens
I do not want to pay for that statue with my own tax dollars. I do not want to 'be represented' as a citizen of the U.S. by a religiously based symbol. Simple as that.
All of this makes me wonder about whether or not the idea of Freedom of Speech is extended to the government itself?.....Interesting.....
SakSquash is offline  
Old 03-07-2005, 05:26 AM   #32
Freeware Co-ordinator
 
stepurhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: South East England.
Posts: 7,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by temporaryscars
It's like placing your hand on the bible when taking the oath.
Do non-Christians have to place their hands on thir own major religious book? (If they have one) Surely this is bringing a particular religion into the workings of Justice. Is the oath meaningless when someone is swearing on a book they don't believe in?
__________________
No Nonsense Nonsonnets #43

Cold Topic

A thread most controversial, that’s what I want to start
Full of impassioned arguments, of posting from the heart
And for this stimulation all will be thankful to me
On come on everybody it won’t work if you agree
stepurhan is offline  
Old 03-07-2005, 07:31 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasilyConfused

The Anglo-Saxons don't predate the 10 Commandments
:eek:

You're right (had my dates reversed )

My mistake.
Avinash_Tyagi is offline  
Old 03-07-2005, 07:36 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by temporaryscars
Bzzt, wrong. Google "First Amendment" and read it and show me where it says "There must be seperation of Church and State." The idea of SoCaS is something we came up with through time and decide mutually that it was a good idea. It's established through presidence of law.

Anyway, in he end, it's just a friggin statue, and it should be up to the state to decide.
You're right the seperation of Church and state was however the will of the framers of the constitution:

Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:

"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."

During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
Avinash_Tyagi is offline  
Old 03-07-2005, 07:50 AM   #35
Curiouser and curiouser
 
EasilyConfused's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 803
Default

Yes. And what's more, Trep's absolutely right about the fact that no one should have to fund any religious display, period. This was also quite clearly the intent of the First Amendment itself. The religion clauses of the First Amendment were based on the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Jefferson and Madison drafted and got passed. You can read more about that bill here.
EasilyConfused is offline  
Old 03-07-2005, 03:41 PM   #36
Banned User
 
SakSquash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Paltz...for now...
Posts: 6,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stepurhan
Do non-Christians have to place their hands on thir own major religious book? (If they have one) Surely this is bringing a particular religion into the workings of Justice. Is the oath meaningless when someone is swearing on a book they don't believe in?
To answer your question, I looked into it, and found that you don't HAVE to put your hand on the bible if you don't want to.
SakSquash is offline  
Old 03-07-2005, 04:20 PM   #37
merely human
 
Intrepid Homoludens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 22,309
Default

If that's the case why not have reproductions of all the religious documents available for witnesses to swear on according to their faith? It's democratic, yes? If the witness wants, he can swear on the bible, or the Koran, whatever he wants.

Or the best option of all, you get to swear on a copy of the U.S. Constitution itself.
__________________
platform: laptop, iPhone 3Gs | gaming: x360, PS3, psp, iPhone, wii | blog: a space alien | book: the moral landscape: how science can determine human values by sam harris | games: l.a.noire, portal 2, brink, dragon age 2, heavy rain | sites: NPR, skeptoid, gaygamer | music: ray lamontagne, adele, washed out, james blake | twitter: a_space_alien
Intrepid Homoludens is offline  
Old 03-07-2005, 06:58 PM   #38
Iconoclast
 
Bastich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens
If that's the case why not have reproductions of all the religious documents available for witnesses to swear on according to their faith? It's democratic, yes? If the witness wants, he can swear on the bible, or the Koran, whatever he wants.

Or the best option of all, you get to swear on a copy of the U.S. Constitution itself.
I just want to swear, period.
Bastich is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 02:09 PM   #39
i'm with... <thud>
 
log p's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: the bowels of sammy davis jr.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens
If that's the case why not have reproductions of all the religious documents available for witnesses to swear on according to their faith? It's democratic, yes? If the witness wants, he can swear on the bible, or the Koran, whatever he wants.

Or the best option of all, you get to swear on a copy of the U.S. Constitution itself.
i would swear on a stack of "High Times"...then use a bible page to roll a joint, if it pleases Your Honor
log p is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 03:39 PM   #40
merely human
 
Intrepid Homoludens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 22,309
Default

I still like the idea of swearing on the U.S. Constitution. It's kinda like you're up against the entire country, and they're saying, "Don't even THINK of f#&king with us. UNDERSTAND?!!!"
__________________
platform: laptop, iPhone 3Gs | gaming: x360, PS3, psp, iPhone, wii | blog: a space alien | book: the moral landscape: how science can determine human values by sam harris | games: l.a.noire, portal 2, brink, dragon age 2, heavy rain | sites: NPR, skeptoid, gaygamer | music: ray lamontagne, adele, washed out, james blake | twitter: a_space_alien
Intrepid Homoludens is offline  
 



Thread Tools

 


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.