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.
So anything that is in violation of the Constitution, if it is already THERE, should be grandfathered in? Is that really the argument you want to make?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
Well, again, I agree with the bolded. Then ten commandments DO have a place in the foundation of western law, however small that role is. So it is historical in nature. Of course, there is simply no way to cover the many sources of the many aspects of American law in a column (or even in a book or encyclopedia). In fact, the sources are legion and cannot be traced back to any single origin or tradition.
I might not like a lot of things happened in the past century, but I won't deny history. Like it or not.
There is a step in the right direction, to be sure - a step towards acknowledging the many and diverse sources of American law.
IN summary, I would argue that The collection includes the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, and the Declaration of Independence. There can be Magna carta, Mayflower compact, the declaration of independence monuments. Maybe the Ten commandment monument should be a start, not the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
First of all,
Though he told authorities that the devil made him do it, Satanists disapproved, after a man allegedly shattered a stone copy of the Ten Commandments last week.
The man told the agents that the devil made him wreck the religious monument, which was placed at the Capitol in late 2012.
He also said he was mentally ill and had stopped taking his medication. He has been detained at a mental health facility for evaluation.
The Satanic Temple has demanded to have a monument of its own erected next to the Judeo-Christian one.
Having such a monument does not establish a religion; therefore, it does not violate the Constitution.
Having the monument FAVORS one religion over others and violates the states constitution.
Section II-5: Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated,
applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use,
benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system
of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest,
preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or
sectarian institution as such.
No, you said "put it in PRIVATE land" That is fake outrage.
What's fake about it?
If the government shows preference towards one religion, it hurts everyone who doesn't follow the government-endorsed religion by suggesting that those non-followers' beliefs are invalid.
When Saudi Arabia promotes Islam, it's at the expense of all other religions.
When Oklahoma promotes Christianity, it's at the expense of all other religions.
Our nation was founded on the principle of FREEDOM of religion, and the recognition that when a nation endorses one particular belief system, say Anglicism, it opens the door to persecution of other belief systems, say Puritanism.
The Puritans who came to the New World to practice their religion didn't show tolerance towards other religions. They hanged Quakers.
And our Founding Fathers thought perhaps there was a better way, if a government was neutral about religion. A secular government.
Naturally, the dominant religion tries to get around that, by getting laws passed that promote its own beliefs (Blue laws for example), by getting the government to display symbols of its beliefs, by getting government officials to follow its particular worship practices (praying before a city council meeting). If the laws, symbols, and practices are vague enough, neutral enough, inclusive enough of other religions, then they can get by with these attempts to influence the government.
If the laws, symbols and practices are not inclusive of other religious beliefs, then they must be removed.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma found that this particular symbol is not inclusive. The intent was not to be inclusive. And the historical argument is moot because American jurisprudence is based on English common law, not on Biblical teachings, which is evidenced by the fact that only 2 of the Ten Commandments are expressed in American legal code, and those 2 prohibitions actually precede the Bible by thousands of years.
If the government shows preference towards one religion, it hurts everyone who doesn't follow the government-endorsed religion by suggesting that those non-followers' beliefs are invalid.
When Saudi Arabia promotes Islam, it's at the expense of all other religions.
When Oklahoma promotes Christianity, it's at the expense of all other religions.
Our nation was founded on the principle of FREEDOM of religion, and the recognition that when a nation endorses one particular belief system, say Anglicism, it opens the door to persecution of other belief systems, say Puritanism.
The Puritans who came to the New World to practice their religion didn't show tolerance towards other religions. They hanged Quakers.
And our Founding Fathers thought perhaps there was a better way, if a government was neutral about religion. A secular government.
Naturally, the dominant religion tries to get around that, by getting laws passed that promote its own beliefs (Blue laws for example), by getting the government to display symbols of its beliefs, by getting government officials to follow its particular worship practices (praying before a city council meeting). If the laws, symbols, and practices are vague enough, neutral enough, inclusive enough of other religions, then they can get by with these attempts to influence the government.
If the laws, symbols and practices are not inclusive of other religious beliefs, then they must be removed.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma found that this particular symbol is not inclusive. The intent was not to be inclusive. And the historical argument is moot because American jurisprudence is based on English common law, not on Biblical teachings, which is evidenced by the fact that only 2 of the Ten Commandments are expressed in American legal code, and those 2 prohibitions actually precede the Bible by thousands of years.
Oklahoma's Supreme Court says the Ten Commandments monument at the state Capitol must be removed because it indirectly benefits the Jewish and Christian faiths in violation of the state's constitution.
I can't see how a ten commandment monument directly or indirectly benefit Jewish or christian faiths at all.
This thread is about ten commandments monument, no?
If you want to talk about sharia law monument, start your own thread, then I would commend accordingly. Meanwhile, stay with the topic. Thank you
Question to you is: Ten commandment monument MUST come down. Why must?
SEPARATION of church and state. Separation is the word. Really simple.
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.
