10C monument has been moved!

[Marc]

Ten Commandments monument moved (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/index.html)

It is still in the building for now, but progress is being made. :)





reading the article now we see the "christian charity" of intimidation against anyone that will move it out of the building.

Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said one firm contacted about removing the monument has refused to do so, and he urged Moore's supporters to boycott any company that took the job.

"When we discover that (moving) company, I think they're going to be sorry they cooperated with this act," Schenck said.

[blue-crab]

"Moore argues that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the U.S. legal system and that forbidding the acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian God violates the First Amendment."

Let's look at them one-by-one:

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' No! Show me this law!

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' No! There is no law against art.

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' No! There is no law that says I can't say bad things about a god.

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' No! There is no law that says any particular day is 'holy'.

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' No! There is no law that says that I must love my parents.

SIX: 'You shall not murder.' Yes!

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.' No! This is a moral issue and not 'law'.

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' Yes!

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' Yes!

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' How does that qualify as the foundation of the U.S. legal system? No! Is it illegal to be jealous of your neighbor?

So, there we have it. Three out of the ten commandments are applicable to U.S. law. And the three that are mentioned are pretty much common sense laws.

[T'ai Chi]

SIX: 'You shall not murder.' Yes!

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' Yes!



Um, are you saying these things are OK to do?

[Marc]

Good summary.

A little longer one can be found here (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/10command.htm)

[/shameless plug]:D

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Um, are you saying these things are OK to do?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It was pretty clear that he meant that those are indeed laws.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Um, are you saying these things are OK to do?

Egads man, let us have a bit of focus.

When he says "Yes", what he is really saying is "Yes, the law of the USA does agree with the sentiment in this commandment."

P.S.: blue-crab, I apologize in advance if I paraphrased incorrectly.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Oh, come on! :mad: I'm sure it wasn't deliberate!




:p ;) :D

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Um, are you saying these things are OK to do?
Thank you for the reminder to update my Ignore list.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Um, are you saying these things are OK to do?

Not only that, he also says that it is OK to bear false witness agaist your neighbor.

So, I wouldn't trust him :D :D



:wink:

[blue-crab]

Originally posted by Marc
Good summary.

A little longer one can be found here (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/10command.htm)

[/shameless plug]:D

I agree. Your page is excellent.

[T'ai Chi]

Oops.

I did it again.

[Keneke]

A rant from a friend of mine:


Some people will pick a fight about anything.

Now, as far as I can tell, the whole argument to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama State Judicial Building is based on "separation of church and state." This argument is inherently stupid and I'm not exactly sure why it hasn't been dismissed out of hand.

Separation of church and state, to me, draws the line at allowing laws to be made based on religious opinions. It prevents a certain religion or group from gaining a legal advantage or preference over another religious group. It blocks religious opinions from determining how someone not of that religion or that opinion should live their lives. It is a policy that ensures fair education, fair employment opportunities, and equal justice.

Explain to me again how a chunk of stone in front of a building is supposed to interfere with that?

If that monument was a sculpture of mating spider monkeys, it would have precisely the same effect on our law-making process. That is to say, none. The only effect it has is on our precious sensibilities. Uh oh...someone's offended.

The order to remove the Ten Commandments was given because someone got their toes stepped on by the mention of God. Oh whine. Too bad no one has the right to not be offended. So what if it's a religious monument at a government building? Religion has just as much place in our country as anything else - to deny its existence is to deny reality. Monuments to our various religions belong just as much as monuments to war heroes and historical figures.

Given that 80% of Alabama citizens most likely either want the monument to stay or really don't care one way or the other, I say let it stay. It's not hurting anything but a few feelings. If some people don't like it, they can petition to have their own monument made and placed. Inclusion instead of exclusion.

The way I see it, every time someone makes a concession to be PC, we lose a little more of what makes us unique. Instead of accepting everyone, we're forcing everyone to hide their identities, in hopes that some nutter somewhere won't be offended that someone else dare be different from them. We go on and on about what a tolerant nation we are, when really what we practice is smothering intolerance. You will be assimiliated.

But all that aside, don't we have better things we could be arguing over? I mean, just last month, the government was talking about a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay marriage. That's a decision that is obviously based on religion opinion alone! Why isn't there a massive front-page fight going on over that?

Discuss.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Keneke
Separation of church and state, to me, draws the line at allowing laws to be made based on religious opinions. It prevents a certain religion or group from gaining a legal advantage or preference over another religious group. It blocks religious opinions from determining how someone not of that religion or that opinion should live their lives. It is a policy that ensures fair education, fair employment opportunities, and equal justice.

Yeah. I can dig that.

I find the whole situation amusing more than anything. The people defending the 10 commandments monument are making it some sort of highwater mark in history. The people who want it gone are making it to be something more important than it is.

It's a hunk of rock. Whether it is there, or isn't there, doesn't matter. Since people's feelings are getting hurt, and principles are being invoked, I say neutralize the whole affair. Ditch the monument. If you want the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, carry a copy of them in your pocket whenever you enter the courthouse. The state can't stop you from doing that.

-Elliot

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Keneke
A rant from a friend of mine:


Some people will pick a fight about anything.
...
But all that aside, don't we have better things we could be arguing over? I mean, just last month, the government was talking about a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay marriage. That's a decision that is obviously based on religion opinion alone! Why isn't there a massive front-page fight going on over that?

Discuss.
Sorry, I cannot agree.

You say it's unimportant to you whether the monument stays or not? It's obviously very important to the religious wackos who are blocking exits to the building. The fact that it is important to them to incorporate their religious symbolism and their myth of a Christian America into governmental institutions is all the justification I need for fighting it.

We are forcing people to hide their identities? I don't see that. Those people are free to pray at home, at church, wherever. All I'm asking is that they not entangle their religion with the government.

The day Judge Moore and his wacko acolytes support my right to enter that same building and post an American Atheists symbol beside their 10 commandment monument, I will believe that they are supporting the free expression of religion. I suspect they would prevent me from doing so. I suspect that they believe they have more right to freely express their religion than I do mine.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Sorry, I cannot agree.

You say it's unimportant to you whether the monument stays or not? It's obviously very important to the religious wackos who are blocking exits to the building. The fact that it is important to them to incorporate their religious symbolism and their myth of a Christian America into governmental institutions is all the justification I need for fighting it.

We are forcing people to hide their identities? I don't see that. Those people are free to pray at home, at church, wherever. All I'm asking is that they not entangle their religion with the government.

The day Judge Moore and his wacko acolytes support my right to enter that same building and post an American Atheists symbol beside their 10 commandment monument, I will believe that they are supporting the free expression of religion. I suspect they would prevent me from doing so. I suspect that they believe they have more right to freely express their religion than I do mine.

I agree with you penguin.

Clearly you are bothered by this, and any Christian should recognize the fact that people are pissed off.

They are being stubborn, and for what? Whether or not the 10 commandments are in the courtroom or not, the 10 commandments will always have their place in history, and they will always mean something in the history of legal thought. This silly little episode is just an outlet for people to get hot and bothered.

-Elliot

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Keneke

Explain to me again how a chunk of stone in front of a building is supposed to interfere with that?


"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

Extended to state governments by the 14th amendment.

Tell me where the constitution says it has to interfere with anything?



If that monument was a sculpture of mating spider monkeys, it would have precisely the same effect on our law-making process. That is to say, none. The only effect it has is on our precious sensibilities. Uh oh...someone's offended.

The constitution does not prohibit the state from offending anyone. It prohibits, inter alia, the state from establishing religion.


The order to remove the Ten Commandments was given because someone got their toes stepped on by the mention of God. Oh whine. Too bad no one has the right to not be offended. So what if it's a religious monument at a government building? Religion has just as much place in our country as anything else - to deny its existence is to deny reality.

Religion has _NO_ place in government. No place at all. To deny that is to deny the constitution.


Given that 80% of Alabama citizens most likely either want the monument to stay or really don't care one way or the other, I say let it stay. It's not hurting anything but a few feelings. If some people don't like it, they can petition to have their own monument made and placed. Inclusion instead of exclusion.

I'm waiting for the day the Satanists come along...



The way I see it, every time someone makes a concession to be PC, we lose a little more of what makes us unique.


It's a sad day in American when supporting the constitution is considered "PC," but not in a good way.


Instead of accepting everyone, we're forcing everyone to hide their identities, in hopes that some nutter somewhere won't be offended that someone else dare be different from them. We go on and on about what a tolerant nation we are, when really what we practice is smothering intolerance. You will be assimiliated.

The dude has it all backwards. Who is "assimilating" whom? Who are the ones who are insisting that a monument to their religion be displayed on public property?

Once again, poor opressed Christians (protestants, actually, because you will notice that the monument does not display the catholic version of the 10 commandments), aren't allowed to use the government to force their religion symbols on everyone.


But all that aside, don't we have better things we could be arguing over? I mean, just last month, the government was talking about a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay marriage. That's a decision that is obviously based on religion opinion alone! Why isn't there a massive front-page fight going on over that?

I don't know, why not ask the morons laying on the steps of the building why they are so insistent that they have their religious monument on public grounds? Don't they have bigger things to worry about, such as the possibility of gay marriages?

Note, the default position is "no monument." Placing the monument there is an imposition on the default. The ones doing the placing are the ones who are acting. Removing it is returning the situation to the default state, one that does not establish a preference for the protestant religion.

The ones placing the monument need to justify why it is there, and are subject to the restrictions of the constitution. If they cannot do that, then it must go.

[elliotfc]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34270

The above is the kind of article that needs to be read, and then digested, one line at a time.

It took me over an hour to read it. :(

-Elliot

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

You say it's unimportant to you whether the monument stays or not? It's obviously very important to the religious wackos who are blocking exits to the building. The fact that it is important to them to incorporate their religious symbolism and their myth of a Christian America into governmental institutions is all the justification I need for fighting it.


This is just like the argument over the "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. How many people were asking, "What's the big deal with saying 'under God'? It's not really the christian god, it's just 'ceremonial deism."

Yeah? Then why are so many people so upset that it is ruled an unconstitutional addition? I mean, it's not really the christian god, and how many people are ceremonial deists? Yet the howling that took place was substantial. Apparently a lot of people are really big on ceremonial deism. Whatever the case, those insisting that it be there (either the monument or 'under God') are the ones who make it a "big deal."

[Starrman]

Now, as far as I can tell, the whole argument to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama State Judicial Building is based on "separation of church and state." This argument is inherently stupid and I'm not exactly sure why it hasn't been dismissed out of hand.

Because it is not stupid. The judge specifically says the monument is there because the commandments are what the law is based upon. That is false. Also, the Alabama state constitution forbids the monument, specifically! Therefore the monument's presence is against the law.

Separation of church and state, to me, draws the line at allowing laws to be made based on religious opinions. It prevents a certain religion or group from gaining a legal advantage or preference over another religious group. It blocks religious opinions from determining how someone not of that religion or that opinion should live their lives. It is a policy that ensures fair education, fair employment opportunities, and equal justice.

How is it fair that a monument of Catholic laws which is falsely claimed to be the basis for our law does not give a religious group an advantage. If I were a Buddhist or Muslim going up in front of this judge, the monument would not fill me with a great deal of confidence.

Explain to me again how a chunk of stone in front of a building is supposed to interfere with that?

I just did - but it is not 'a chunk of stone' - it is a religious monument.

If that monument was a sculpture of mating spider monkeys, it would have precisely the same effect on our law-making process. That is to say, none. The only effect it has is on our precious sensibilities. Uh oh...someone's offended.

I don't think anyone said the monument affected the law making process. It is against the law for it to be there. Period. It affects more than our sensibilities as well. It is a lie - and allowing it to be there only increases the chances that someone else will swallow the lie.

The order to remove the Ten Commandments was given because someone got their toes stepped on by the mention of God. Oh whine. Too bad no one has the right to not be offended. So what if it's a religious monument at a government building? Religion has just as much place in our country as anything else - to deny its existence is to deny reality. Monuments to our various religions belong just as much as monuments to war heroes and historical figures.

It is not just a monument to a religion. Ask the judge that put it there - he thinks it is the basis for our laws! To equate this with statues of war heroes is ridiculous.

Given that 80% of Alabama citizens most likely either want the monument to stay or really don't care one way or the other, I say let it stay. It's not hurting anything but a few feelings. If some people don't like it, they can petition to have their own monument made and placed. Inclusion instead of exclusion.

Appeal to popularity. The last point is ludicrous - I'm sure this judge wouldn't mind at all if someone tried to put a statue of Buddha on the premises.

The way I see it, every time someone makes a concession to be PC, we lose a little more of what makes us unique. Instead of accepting everyone, we're forcing everyone to hide their identities, in hopes that some nutter somewhere won't be offended that someone else dare be different from them. We go on and on about what a tolerant nation we are, when really what we practice is smothering intolerance. You will be assimiliated.

He is making this a PC issue, which it is not. And he has the whole second part backwards. Taking the monument out is to make sure that no one is exluded.

But all that aside, don't we have better things we could be arguing over? I mean, just last month, the government was talking about a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay marriage. That's a decision that is obviously based on religion opinion alone! Why isn't there a massive front-page fight going on over that?

This has nothing to do with the validity of either side, so I will ignore it.

To me, it is not the 'chunk of rock' that is an issue - it is the reason the judge has it there. Again, if I were anything but a bible-thumper, I would fear drawing him as a judge for my trial.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by elliotfc
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34270

The above is the kind of article that needs to be read, and then digested, one line at a time.

It took me over an hour to read it. :(

-Elliot

It seems that Keyes's arguments relies on the claim that the 14th amendment does not extend the constitutional restrictions on congress to the states. As far as I can see, this is totally at odds with how the courts have interpreted it. As such, his whole argument falls like a house of cards.

[Azathoth]

Courtroom monument fight in an alternate universe... (http://deskmerc.com/archives/cat_political_assmonkeys.html#000203)

Should appeal to Nyarlathotep

[hgc]

In the 2000 pres election, when Keyes was running, in a debate of Republican candidates, he said something to the effect that the federal government should not be allowed to stop a state from imposing a religious test for holders of public office.

He is very much in favor of theocracy, as is Judge Moore.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Azathoth
Courtroom monument fight in an alternate universe... (http://deskmerc.com/archives/cat_political_assmonkeys.html#000203)

Should appeal to Nyarlathotep

That was hilarious. The deep one protestor getting dragged away was priceless.

[Yahweh]

10C monument has been moved!
Quick, we must replace them with The Eleven Satanic Rules of Earth (http://www.maledicta.com/library/rules.html).

(I'm a little lost as to what rule #7 implies... oh well, I have to pray to Satan now... :D)

[EdipisReks]

i wish i had a big Cthulhu tablet.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Quick, we must replace them with The Eleven Satanic Rules of Earth (http://www.maledicta.com/library/rules.html).

(I'm a little lost as to what rule #7 implies... oh well, I have to pray to Satan now... :D)

if you don't use magic, don't worry about rule #7 ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

It looks like we have an answer to one age old cunondrum.

The irresistable force wins...

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Note, the default position is "no monument." Placing the monument there is an imposition on the default. The ones doing the placing are the ones who are acting. Removing it is returning the situation to the default state, one that does not establish a preference for the protestant religion.

The ones placing the monument need to justify why it is there, and are subject to the restrictions of the constitution. If they cannot do that, then it must go. Well said.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Um, are you saying these things are OK to do?

Is there a reason for this transparent dishonesty, troll?:tr:

[Checkmite]

The way I see it, every time someone makes a concession to be PC, we lose a little more of what makes us unique. Instead of accepting everyone, we're forcing everyone to hide their identities, in hopes that some nutter somewhere won't be offended that someone else dare be different from them. We go on and on about what a tolerant nation we are, when really what we practice is smothering intolerance. You will be assimiliated.

This person takes a condescending tone, which is bad enough; it's even worse when it's clear that a person using such a tone really has no idea what he's talking about. This is a First Amendment issue, not a PC issue. This "losing a little bit of what makes us unique" stuff is absolutely ridiculous - he's referring to culture, and here in the United States, the government does not define culture - the people do, which is why anybody can have a ten commandments monument in their front yard. The ousting of a clearly Judeo-Christian monument from a place that isn't supposed to play favorites is making a concession for the sake of "accepting everyone". The argument he is making is the reason for moving the monument, not keeping it. I would not feel fairly treated by somebody who makes judgements based on the Ten Commandments, or the Bible. Were a case of mine to appear before Moore, I would demand a change of venue.


But all that aside, don't we have better things we could be arguing over? I mean, just last month, the government was talking about a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay marriage. That's a decision that is obviously based on religion opinion alone! Why isn't there a massive front-page fight going on over that?


No, one senator proposed such a bill, and the bill stalled out of the gate - that's why it's not being discussed. Moron.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

You say it's unimportant to you whether the monument stays or not?

I say? I'm not saying anything. Just posting someone with an opposing view that I thought was interesting to see what reaction it would get. Please don't kill the messenger!

[nightwind]

If they were going to post the 10 commandments, at least they should have included the last of the Commandments=

"Don't boil a young goat in the milk of its mother."

What in the world were they thinking? This is certainly unfair to young goats.

These should have been taken down. :rolleyes:

[c4ts]

Originally posted by nightwind
If they were going to post the 10 commandments, at least they should have included the last of the Commandments=

"Don't boil a young goat in the milk of its mother."

What in the world were they thinking? This is certainly unfair to young goats.

These should have been taken down. :rolleyes:

Oh man, does this mean Indian food is a sin? NOOOOOOOO!