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.
I don't condone his behavior or the vandalism, but the Arkansas state government has made some really stupid decisions where they keep getting the state into lawsuits and wasting money that could have gone to something productive. This may actually be a blessing in disguise for the state.
Oklahoma finally decided to relent when it was being pushed, and the commandments left the official government building to one nearby which wasn't part of government. That was the whole point, they promoted one religion over any other. It promoted an official religion.
The guy who did this is likely not all quite there, but just the same, the state has no right to be promoting ONE religion over any other.
Our state government is still arguing about how to pay its bills and seems to be not making much of a fuss this time. They did have a local station show the new copy off just so people know its still there.
The state captial's refirbishing and shoring up is still in action and it would be best they keep quiet about more possible things to fund.
That was the whole point, they promoted one religion over any other. It promoted an official 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."
A display of the Ten commandments by a government entity does not violate the first amendment.The first amendment clearly states that " Congress shall make no law..." A monument is not a law.
Even for someone who does not believe what could be so offensive they need to destroy it?
Well if he worships another god he might be pissed about the one saying don't worship another god.
Who knows. They aren't a great set of rules anyway as the prime set of rules. An odd collection - could be improved by replacing half of them at least.
In 2015 he destroyed an Oklahoma 10 commandments monument, but was never charged. Why wasn't he charged? He should have been charged, sentenced to jail, and paid compensation for what he destroyed.
It is my opinion that the prosecutor's office in Oklahoma, who failed to do their job by not charging him in the 2015 incident, should be made to pay for the damages in this vandalism in Arkansas. The prosecutor's office should not use their funds to pay, but the people who work in the prosecutor's office and failed to do their job in 2015 should pay out of their paychecks.
"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."
A display of the Ten commandments by a government entity does not violate the first amendment.The first amendment clearly states that " Congress shall make no law..." A monument is not a law.
Constitutional law is far more complicated than you think it is.
The First Amendment does talk about 'Congress shall make no law". However, the Fourteenth Amendment makes the First Amendment and most of the Bill of Rights binding upon the states through the doctrine of incorporation which has been recognized by the US Supreme Court.
The law in question is a law by the state legislature authorizing the erection of the Ten Commandments Monument.
The second issue is whether construction of a Ten Commandments Monument "establishes a religion" and thereby violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Actually, the Supreme Court has held in some cases that a Ten Commandments Plaque viiolates the establishment clause in some cases and does not in other cases. Why is this is so confusing? Because it depends on the states intentions or motivations when it erects such a monument. If the monument was erected many decades ago and was simply intended as a statement of the foundation of our laws it is probably acceptable. However, if a more recent legislature created such a monument because it was trying to cater to some religious group than the monument does establish a religion and is probably illegal under the establishment clause.
In any event, its a complex subject. You need to educate yourself a bit about it.
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.
