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.
Sad that our courts system has to waste time and money on a monument that doesn't affect citizens instead of real problems.
If religious extremists would stop breaking the law the courts would be free to focus on other lawbreakers. But you can't blame the courts for doing their job and enforcing the law as it is intended.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a load of crap. People at one point as part of their history wanted to built a landmark to the 10 commandments. This is not a statement of state religion, it's a carving.
Yes, it's a carving of a list of Hebrew laws which are supposed to be followed absolutely. It's a carving telling everyone who walks into that courtroom that if you're not worshiping the Christian God of the Bible, you're sinning, breaking the law in the eyes of that court.
Think of it this way: Would you hang a picture of Justin Bieber in your living room if you weren't a fan of Justin Bieber? "Well, it's not a statement of how much I like Justin Bieber, it's just a poster!"
You don't display things in your home that are not a reflection of who you and your family are. Thus a secular government should not be displaying religious laws in a courtroom -- especially when it's more than understood that neither the judges or the attorneys are consulting the Bible for case law.
Now, I could probably turn a blind eye IF they only put up the 3 commandments that actually parallel our penal code (theft, murder, and perjury) -- but they don't. They put all of them up there, including the 4 religious laws ... including the one telling every non-Christian that their religion or lack of belief is WRONG, "and even the courts agree" lest why would they display those laws if they didn't?
It specifically tells every non-Christian who walks into that building, "Thou shalt have no other God [the Judaeo-Christian God] before me."
The Supreme Court has already ruled a long time ago that the Establishment Clause doesn't simply mean the states and the nation cannot set up a government religion, the clause also means the government cannot promote or support any specific religion to the exclusion of all others. And that's just what a sculpture of the 10 Commandments in a government courthouse does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Much like mount rushmore isn't a state support of those presidents but simply a landmark.
Tell ya what -- the moment George Washington opens up his granite mouth and bellows, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me [Jehovah, Yahweh]," then I'll petition the government to remove him from government lands, too.
Yes, four busts of US presidents are not religious laws that you are supposed to obey ... blindly and without question. There is a mountain (pun intended) of difference between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
They can ignore it and show state indifference. Instead they're showing their bums as anti-religious state officials.
Right ... but if you walked into a courthouse and saw a giant pentagram carved into the floor and the Satanic Commandments carved on a big sculpture, I'm sure you and your fellow Christians would simply smile with indifference and say nothing. Is that correct?
No, I don't even have to go that extreme. What if there was a big star and crescent moon sculpture that quoted from the Qu'ran and ominously, "You shall have no other gods but Allah, peace be upon him." No Christians would make a fuss? Not one little cry of alarm? No one screaming about creeping Sharia Law in America? Nothing?
But yeah, when atheists actually want the US Constitution enforced, allowing all or no religious displays, we end up becoming the bad guys. Of course, there are plenty of fascist Christians who go through life thinking the Bible, not the Constitution, should be the Supreme Law of the Land.
Arach, your theistic bias is showing again . You are speaking from ignorance here, and displaying something you try very hard to keep hidden...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Let the states decide, keep the fedz out. Leave old buildings old and new building without them. it aint rocket science.
As has been pointed out before, the Oklahoma case you are commenting on has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Nothing.
Let that sink in.
It is a bunch of State Legislators who installed the monument in violation of the State Constitution and the display was ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. This is a state issue, and it was deemed to be illegal on a the basis of State Law.
Secondly, this is essentially new construction. This is a monument installed in 2012. You cannot blame opponents for the fact that it takes 3 years fro a case to work its way to the State Supreme Court. This is not a case of opponents attempting to decapitate statues of Catholic saints, like Oliver Cromwell's army did, or destroy ancient statues of the Buddha, like the Taliban. This is a case of secularists ( not even atheists, the lawsuit was filed by a Baptist minister!) opposing an attempt to violate state law.
I do agree with you that historic monuments should not be destroyed or removed just becasue we don't like them now. I think some of the removal of the confederate memorials is a shame. Ugly or not, it is part of our history, and we shouldn't sanitize it. In the same way, removing the religious symbols from historic buildings is simply trying to pretend it never happened, and that is foolish. But that is not what is happening here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
religious extremist want to go and waste a ton of money removing anything from other religions or items from people that don't think like them.
So this is where your bias shows through loud and clear. In a situation, which by your own criteria outlined above, where the erection of the monument is indefensible and clearly illegal and wrong, you still try to criticize those who opposed it as bigotted and wasteful. No criticism of the State legistators who misused government property to unconstitutionally endorse religion, no criticism of the Governor who spent taxpayer dollars fighting for years in court to defend an Unconstitutional action, and no criticism of the politicians who are attempting to change the Oklahoma State Constitution to allow the state to endorse religion and force a federal court challenge.
No, you only criticize those who uphold secular government and the Oklahoma State Constitution, a their own cost and based solely on principle. Only they are "extremists". Only they are close minded and trying to impose their views on those who don't think like them.
For someone claiming to be an unbiased, rational, evidence based thinker, you certainly missed the mark here. Perhaps you should take a few moments to not only examine the evidence in this case, but examine the evidence of your own reaction and see if you can sort out the emotional reasoning you are using here to replace dispassionate, evidence based thinking...
No, I don't even have to go that extreme. What if there was a big star and crescent moon sculpture that quoted from the Qu'ran and ominously, "You shall have no other gods but Allah, peace be upon him." No Christians would make a fuss? Not one little cry of alarm? No one screaming about creeping Sharia Law in America? Nothing?
According to Jeffy, monuments "don't affect citizens"*. (Post 26.) So, should you decide to branch out and create public art with such a sculpture you're good to go.
*At least the 10 Commandments monument doesn't. So I'm not sure what good it's doing or why it should be there when a statue of.... say....... Frank Zappa would be much cooler to look at.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 08-05-2015 at 04:14 PM..
Arach, your theistic bias is showing again . You are speaking from ignorance here, and displaying something you try very hard to keep hidden...
As has been pointed out before, the Oklahoma case you are commenting on has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Nothing.
Let that sink in.
It is a bunch of State Legislators who installed the monument in violation of the State Constitution and the display was ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. This is a state issue, and it was deemed to be illegal on a the basis of State Law.
Secondly, this is essentially new construction. This is a monument installed in 2012. You cannot blame opponents for the fact that it takes 3 years fro a case to work its way to the State Supreme Court. This is not a case of opponents attempting to decapitate statues of Catholic saints, like Oliver Cromwell's army did, or destroy ancient statues of the Buddha, like the Taliban. This is a case of secularists ( not even atheists, the lawsuit was filed by a Baptist minister!) opposing an attempt to violate state law.
I do agree with you that historic monuments should not be destroyed or removed just becasue we don't like them now. I think some of the removal of the confederate memorials is a shame. Ugly or not, it is part of our history, and we shouldn't sanitize it. In the same way, removing the religious symbols from historic buildings is simply trying to pretend it never happened, and that is foolish. But that is not what is happening here...
So this is where your bias shows through loud and clear. In a situation, which by your own criteria outlined above, where the erection of the monument is indefensible and clearly illegal and wrong, you still try to criticize those who opposed it as bigotted and wasteful. No criticism of the State legistators who misused government property to unconstitutionally endorse religion, no criticism of the Governor who spent taxpayer dollars fighting for years in court to defend an Unconstitutional action, and no criticism of the politicians who are attempting to change the Oklahoma State Constitution to allow the state to endorse religion and force a federal court challenge.
No, you only criticize those who uphold secular government and the Oklahoma State Constitution, a their own cost and based solely on principle. Only they are "extremists". Only they are close minded and trying to impose their views on those who don't think like them.
For someone claiming to be an unbiased, rational, evidence based thinker, you certainly missed the mark here. Perhaps you should take a few moments to not only examine the evidence in this case, but examine the evidence of your own reaction and see if you can sort out the emotional reasoning you are using here to replace dispassionate, evidence based thinking...
-NoCapo
I hit a nerve didn't I. That's telling. That was my bad. It was intentional.
"burp", excuse me ...
for the record, I said: If it is against the law it's against the law. I am for separation and church and state. leave It on old buildings and don't put it on new buildings. I am for the fedz to stay out of state affairs for the most part. I am not a constitution literalist when its convenient for me either. it aint that complicated.
now for this:
anybody this offended by the ten commandments has an internal issue. This is like speeding ... fine'em and move on. religious extremist make a big deal about nothing. Is this one sign a big deal for you? I personally don't care about ten commandments. It's the one thing from religion that can be left alone.
You guys remind me of the NRA, wiggin out over one thing because you are afraid of laws spiraling out of control. We are already out of control. "unarmed" is the new word for "innocent" and we are passing tens of trillions of dollar debt onto our grandchildren. Yeah, erase those commandants alright. That'll stop the crazies.
this state knowingly breaks the law ... thats insanity.
I hit a nerve didn't I. That's telling. That was my bad. It was intentional.
"burp", excuse me ...
for the record, I said: If it is against the law it's against the law. I am for separation and church and state. leave It on old buildings and don't put it on new buildings. I am for the fedz to stay out of state affairs for the most part. I am not a constitution literalist when its convenient for me either. it aint that complicated.
now for this:
anybody this offended by the ten commandments has an internal issue. This is like speeding ... fine'em and move on. religious extremist make a big deal about nothing. Is this one sign a big deal for you? I personally don't care about ten commandments. It's the one thing from religion that can be left alone.
You guys remind me of the NRA, wiggin out over one thing because you are afraid of laws spiraling out of control. We are already out of control. "unarmed" is the new word for "innocent" and we are passing tens of trillions of dollar debt onto our grandchildren. Yeah, erase those commandants alright. That'll stop the crazies.
this state knowingly breaks the law ... thats insanity.
I'm as offended by Bible verses as Quran verses, and as offended at first 10 Jewish commandments as any 10 Satanic commandments.... even if a few might seem reasonable at simplified faced value. Allowing the states to divide amongst themselves along anti-secular religious lines could be the greatest mistake the secular Federal government could make (but it might increase State-horrors and the subsequent positive reforms that follow) especially considering that the Feds would have to begin to ignore the 14th amendment establishing that all citizens of the united states must have their States protect the same basic federal rights that the Federal Constitution defines.
I hit a nerve didn't I. That's telling. That was my bad. It was intentional.
"burp", excuse me ....
Must be there's a vestige of optimism left in me.
I was expecting something more like...
"Those are good points. I admit to not having given this particular case enough thought."
Guess it was just wishful thinking.
I'd be so much more sympathetic to state's rights arguments if they weren't so frequently used to stick it to minorities that the locals don't like.
yup, that's how I felt for the longest. I used the words "most cases" and it the processes never goes as planned But it is so just bad now. We can do a controlled return or we can let it happen naturally.
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.
. You are speaking from ignorance here, and displaying something you try very hard to keep hidden... 
