Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a lawyer, and a Christian, I feel the need for some clarification on where "our laws" came from.
Our laws weren't really "based" on the Bible. Take the Ten Commandments. There are some similarities between our state laws and the Commandments. Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc... But please note that these prohibitions also existed in secular laws before the Ten Commandments, such as the Code of Hammurabi.
The Commandments against coveting thy neighbor, adultery, having other gods, and idol worship are completely contrary to our law against church and state entanglement. Our laws are certainly not based on these ideas, because they are actually completely contrary to our laws today.
While there are some similarities between our law and God's law, our secular laws are not based on religious teaching. They were based on the "Enlightenment" which was actually a move towards secularism. There's nothing wrong with that. After all, Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is Gods. It doesn't make religious rules any less important. We should follow both sets of laws.
It's just important to note that our state and national laws are not rooted in religion. That argument doesn't hold water.
Not sure I understand your whole post, but let me say this... I think you're confusing "Freedom of Religion" with "Separation of Church & State", which are two different things. You are free to practice religion in your life, but the government has to maintain a "neutral" stance - therefore, NO religion. Does that make sense? The ACLU isn't conflicting with anything, since they are protecting the liberties of NON-Christians. I don't believe in Jesus, so why should I only see his image in a government building?
No on the contrary, I am not confused at all. I am well aware of both concepts, freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. Moreover, my point is very simple-u can't use seperation of church and state to usurp the right of freedom of religion. If the aclu is on a mission to preserve civil liberties they are contradicting their own mission by infringing on freedom of religion. There is no merit in the argument a picture of someone should be removed from the court even if the aclu is under the assumption it is Jesus. This case is "noise" and a veiled attack on religious freedom.
No on the contrary, I am not confused at all. I am well aware of both concepts, freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. Moreover, my point is very simple-u can't use seperation of church and state to usurp the right of freedom of religion. If the aclu is on a mission to preserve civil liberties they are contradicting their own mission by infringing on freedom of religion. There is no merit in the argument a picture of someone should be removed from the court even if the aclu is under the assumption it is Jesus. This case is "noise" and a veiled attack on religious freedom.
The free exercise clause does not include government.
No on the contrary, I am not confused at all. I am well aware of both concepts, freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. Moreover, my point is very simple-u can't use seperation of church and state to usurp the right of freedom of religion. If the aclu is on a mission to preserve civil liberties they are contradicting their own mission by infringing on freedom of religion. There is no merit in the argument a picture of someone should be removed from the court even if the aclu is under the assumption it is Jesus. This case is "noise" and a veiled attack on religious freedom.
No it's not. It's not like someone asked to bring a bible into the courtroom and was told they couldn't (in fact, people swear in on a bible in some courts). The issue is there is a picture of Jesus on the wall of the courthouse....
A priest Friday identified the image as a 16th century Russian Orthodox icon called "Christ the Savior," — most likely a reprint. In the picture, Jesus is shown holding open a book to display two pages, each with a biblical quotation about judging correctly and wisely. The quotations are written in Russian. (from the article) Under the picture it says "To know peace, obey these laws"
The message would insinuate the same meaning as a sign on the wall that said "No Smoking". The court has no right under the constitution to say that anyone who enters the courtroom has to follow the doctrines of Christ. Pretty cut and dry IMO.
I agree there is a lot of noise alright....from the radical conservative right. Trying to build up that "common enemy" again to rally the troops.
No on the contrary, I am not confused at all. I am well aware of both concepts, freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. Moreover, my point is very simple-u can't use seperation of church and state to usurp the right of freedom of religion. If the aclu is on a mission to preserve civil liberties they are contradicting their own mission by infringing on freedom of religion. There is no merit in the argument a picture of someone should be removed from the court even if the aclu is under the assumption it is Jesus. This case is "noise" and a veiled attack on religious freedom.
The question is: who is expressing their religion? An individual or the government?
If it is an individual, then it falls under the specter of the "free exercise of religion." For instance, if the picture is in the Judge's private chambers, it is an individual's expression of religion. However, if the picture is in the hallway of the courthouse, or in the courtroom, it appears to be a government act, and not the expression of an individual person.
If the government is expressing a belief in a religion, the expression is not permitted because it is an endorsement of a religion. Here, the government's hanging of a picture of Jesus is an endorsement of Christianity.
Forbidding government from showing a picture of Jesus does not mean that Jesus is unimportant or should not be respected. Instead, government is to show fairness and equality to all religions. Therefore, the easiest thing for it to do, is just not discuss religion at all. We don't lose our religion at the courthouse steps. But the government should not make one person feel better -- or worse -- about their faith because of some endorsement. A Christian should not feel they are getting "Christian justice" in a government building. Neither should a Jew, Hindu or Muslim.
Plus, whenever religion has been intertwined with the state, religion is made to look horrible. The "dark ages" were "dark" because the Church ran the governments of Europe. No education was allowed by peasants. To this day, it is hard to get Europeans into Church because of it. The worst thing the Church can do is to impose its will on the government. A megachurch over there is 200-300 people. Here in America, it's more like 20,000.
We don't need the government as a crutch to help us spread the Word of God. It should be presented so beautifully that we don't need the government.
How does the aclu know it is a picture of JESUS? Seems to me they're just trying to make noise for the sake of being heard. Did u know the legal system in America is based on Biblical principles? If u say no God in court then u say no to law and order.
The word God is never mentioned, not once in The Constitution of the United States of America. The legal system evolved from British Common Law and is based on The Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems to me they're just trying to make noise for the sake of being heard. Did u know the legal system in America is based on Biblical principles? If u say no God in court then u say no to law and order.
