Ten Commandments on Display Has No Legal Standing

sierratimes.com ^

[Maelstrom]

"As far as I can see, again excluding gov't time/money/property, no Christians are being prevented from worshipping whenever they please."

The government's time and money aren't at issue. Therefore 2/3 of your point are invalid. The government owns the majority of property in America, so yes, there is a very signficiant prohibition against religions.

And yes...this prohibition is what you're supporting.

You have not demonstrated the ability to consider the meaning of removing all things that allude to religion from government property. You're focused on some flawed, and non-existant attempt toward the establishment of religion that supposedly exists in a work of art that merely has a Biblical theme.

It's not there.

[Maelstrom]

WHAT PERSECUTION OF NON-CHRISTIANS!?!??

The existance of a statue or monument with Biblical themes does not even present a *challenge* to non-Christian beliefs.

[Maelstrom]

"Did you know that only two percent of Christian Churches in America display the 10 Commandments? "

That's great!

THAT PROVES MY POINT!

The 10 Commandments aren't a religious establishment. They're a work of art with a Biblical theme.

I'd be willing to bet that they are found more often in reference to LAW than in reference to religion!!!!

However, their removal rests entirely upon objections to religion i.e. religious intolerance.

[sinkspur]

The 10 Commandments aren't a religious establishment. They're a work of art with a Biblical theme.

That's not what Judge Roy says. Judge Roy says they are meant to establish "the predominance of God over Church and State."

That's religious.

[Roscoe]

That's not what Judge Roy says.

No statements of Judge Moore are on the monument Myron Thompson censored.

[Maelstrom]

"Honor thy father and thy mother" is the foundation for laws that give biological parents first claim on children.

It is also the basis by which parents are now subject to legal prosecution for their children's misbehavior.

This commandment *is* in secular law several ways, several places, and in contemporary times.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery"

This commandment *is* in secular law in a couple of different ways. First it is the foundation for the marriage principle. It is extremely important if it is violated, when considering divorce, and it has secular implications regarding reinforcement of the marriage-as-a-contract viewpoint of marriage. MORE...it is the foundation against statutory rape of the young and counsels wisdom for youth against disease.

"Thou shalt not covet..."

Would seem to create a "thought crime" if enforced in secular law. You can find it, nonetheless, in "hate crimes". It counsels wisdom, and oddly enough also lower taxes.

The 10 Commandments are the foundation of Law in Western Civilization...and will always be the root of law if it is banned.

[Maelstrom]

Ok...
...he's wrong.

They don't establish any such thing.

Unless you're already a Christian.

[Maelstrom]

"See, to me, this isn't about the 10 Commandments; it's about Roy Moore and the next step on his career ladder. "

I have no problem should you choose to denigrate Judge Moore with this clear statement.

You might be right.

Don't, however, advocate anti-religious actions based upon the flaws of a zealot.

[Maelstrom]

Similarly to the raving anti-religious bigot, religious neutrality and the total elimination of religion look the same. They are not the same.

[Maelstrom]

No.

The Supremes, by the authority granted *themselves* interpret the law of the land.

AND

It's another reason why a civil war is a high probability within the US.

[Maelstrom]

"The only thing I fear is a theocracy, Walsh. Of any kind, under any religious banner. "

Are you implying that a total ban against all religions would be preferable for you?

It's not something that can be logically drawn from your statement, however, barring any and all religious displays does not aid in the creation of a theocracy while it *does* imply a preference for a total ban against all religions. (i.e. your opposition to the display seems to fail logic as I've demonstrated for you with your own words in a Devil's Advocate method)

[Maelstrom]

Cite it.

I have never seen persecution of non-Christians within the US.

You must cite it.

[Maelstrom]

You said that already, and it's still irrelevant.

[Robert_Paulson2]

"Honor thy father and thy mother" -- biological parent's first claim to children...

---

baloney...
the hebrew word translate as "HONOR" literally translated means PAY your parents. It means that you are to give them what they need and what is their just due for raising you... changing your dirty diapers, feeding you all the time and wiping your nose.

PAY, MONEY and SUPPORT from the children to the parents... NOT a custody issue at all...

---

you are reaching.

[Robert_Paulson2]

No statements of Judge Moore are on the monument Myron Thompson censored.

---

True... but they are the subject of about six legal charges wherein his colleagues on the Supreme Court (whom he did NOT consult with on his "religious statue" placement, prior to it's creation... ) are moving against him... most of them confirmed Christians, who are just as devout as the judge.

HIS statements are part of the legal judgements against him and they are part of the Judge's own testimonies under oath...

It is disingenous to act as if we can now separate the problem of the statue's placement, from the legal pronouncements made by it's creator, in a court of law. The judge's disrespect for his colleagues in doing this against their will, surrepticiously, is foundational to the removal.

It would not surprise me in the least that after they remove the JUDGE and the Marble slab... the eight authorize a similar work, with virtually all the same elements, and a few of their own additions to make this one "acceptable" to the feds.

The judge may end up doing time for dishonoring his colleagues. The eight of them together, along with a federal district court and the USSC, have a lot of collective power, to make a significant change in the Judge's career path.

You and I are on way opposite sides of this matter. But, I think that is how it will play out. And I know, you did not ask for my opinion.

[Roscoe]

but they are the subject of about six legal charges wherein his colleagues on the Supreme Court

Which, once again, is a different matter from the censorship of the Ten Commandments.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Which, once again, is a different matter from the censorship of the Ten Commandments.

---

actually the two issues are connected.

[Pahuanui]

The government's time and money aren't at issue. Therefore 2/3 of your point are invalid.

You seem to be experiencig severe cognitive dissonance. Fractional division is irrelevant to the particular matter at hand, so do try and remain topical, hmmmm?

The government owns the majority of property in America, so yes, there is a very signficiant prohibition against religions.

Kindly conduct yourself to the next state park, for example. Once there, begin to pray. Or, if it better suits you, read your bible. You will find no officer of the state preventing you from doing so.

And yes...this prohibition is what you're supporting.

Again, you are not prohibited from worship on gov't property, thus such an example cannot be used to further detail some bogeyman paradigm about prohibition of religion or the free exercise thereof.

You have not demonstrated the ability to consider the meaning of removing all things that allude to religion from government property

Certainly I can consider such a concept. In the case in Alabama, however, your point is irrelevant.

. You're focused on some flawed, and non-existant attempt toward the establishment of religion that supposedly exists in a work of art that merely has a Biblical theme.

I see you are utterly unaquainted with either Judge Moore, his statements or the case in general. It's not there.