it's about freedom of religion, not forcing our beliefs on others (wink, wink)

[Marc]

You all know the arguments for placing the 10 Commandments in public buildings. It is our heratige (somewhat), it is the basis of our laws (false), and then there is the cry of opression saying to remove such a display is to deny people their freedom of religion.

In Iowa some group donated a 10C display to the state supreme court. The court kindly refused the gift, now hundreds have gathered to protest. Sheesh!!

"here, I have a gift for you"

"Why thank you, but I can't accept it"

"I said Take it! It is a gift, you can't refuse it, and you Have to display it where I say so!"

protest at supreme court (http://www.woi-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1448832&nav=1LFXI4kD)

rally for 10C (http://www.dailygate.com/articles/2003/09/18/news/news3.txt)

[LuxFerum]

I have to say this:


This guy really know how to promote himself, I bet he will be candidate for something.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Marc


rally for 10C (http://www.dailygate.com/articles/2003/09/18/news/news3.txt)
"This rally will be patriotic and festive, not something to generate a fight," said Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, which was sponsoring the rally. "The tone I want to set is 'Please, Supreme Court justices, do what is right."':id:

[Marc]

What irony? This is not about creating a fight, just about making sure the government does everything they tell it too.:rolleyes:

and of course they have to work 'patriotic' in there. After all you can't be patriotic without being a bible thumping christian. :mad:

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Marc
You all know the arguments for placing the 10 Commandments in public buildings. It is our heratige (somewhat), it is the basis of our laws (false), and then there is the cry of opression saying to remove such a display is to deny people their freedom of religion.[/URL]

Actually ceo_esq has an exellent thread (that I am remiss for not linking to) that shows how much of our local and state law is rooted in the 10 Commandments and the Levitical laws in general. Not surprising given the outlooks of many local and state lawmakers over the last 227 years, but in stark contrast to the outlook of the framers.

That said, Roy Moore has made it clear that his "rock" is about acknowledging "God" and has made it abundantly clear that said God is the God of his interpretation of the New Testment of the Christian Bible. His monument belongs in some church atrium, not in a governmental building.

[Chaos]

There was a quite similar uproar in Germany a few years ago as our Federal Constitutional Court (resembles the U.S. Supreme Court) ruled that the crucifixes hanging in school classrooms in the state of Bavaria had to be removed from a specific classroom if the parents of at least one of the kids learning in that room objected to it. They said our constitution guaranteed freedom of religion and no one could be forced to accept the presence of a symbol of another religion in a public building - though the crucifixes could remain if everybody agreed on that.
The church and most Christian (especially Catholic) groups immediately accused the Court of "banning religion from schools".

[Brown]

I discuss the same issue in this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870100017#post1870100017) As I note in my posts, many of the so-called legal documents have repeated references to God in one form or another.

The preamble to the Iowa Constitution, for example, includes one giant toadying butt-smooch to the Almighty.

Also, many of the documents are quite lengthy. I will bet that some editing has taken place, and I'll also bet that references to the Almighty have NOT been edited out.

I also say: "The budget for the Iowa judicial department already gets short shrift (so to speak) as it is, and the department doesn't need to waste its money buying a lawsuit."