• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The 10 (unlawful) commandments

Mϋzikdϋde

Simply Fabulous
Sep 19, 2002
3,970
258
61
Colorado Springs
Visit site
✟28,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Federal Judge Myron Thompson declared the display of the Ten Commandments unlawful.

Judge Thompson asked the question; “Can the state acknowledge God?”
He went on to answer; “No”
So did he just declare us an Atheist nation? Wouldn’t that, in and of itself, violate the first amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the First Amendment says. Congress has passed no law establishing religion. But what Congress refused to do (indeed because Congress refused to do it) Judge Thompson did. He instituted as the law of the land the religion of atheism, which says there is no God.
I know this is semantical but so is most of the stuff on this site...Discuss
smile.gif
 

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
muzikdude said:
Federal Judge Myron Thompson declared the display of the Ten Commandments unlawful.

Judge Thompson asked the question; “Can the state acknowledge God?”
He went on to answer; “No”
First off, this is the actual ruling involved. Glassroth vs Moore I suggest that you read it.

So did he just declare us an Atheist nation? Wouldn’t that, in and of itself, violate the first amendment?
For the state to refrain from endorsing an opinion on religion does not make the state atheist.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the First Amendment says. Congress has passed no law establishing religion.
Actions of state government and their representatives fall under the juristdiction of the 1st Amendment by way of the 14th Amendment.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


It is a basic fact of constitutional law that the 1st Amenement applies to state actions in this way. That you don't know that is revealing in and of itself.

But what Congress refused to do (indeed because Congress refused to do it)
Congress, along with 2/3 of the states passed the 14th Amendment and so congress did to it. Congress applied the 1st Amdnement to the states and state agents when it passed the 14th Amendment.

Judge Thompson did. He instituted as the law of the land the religion of atheism, which says there is no God.
That's as simply false for the reasons given above.
 
Upvote 0

Mϋzikdϋde

Simply Fabulous
Sep 19, 2002
3,970
258
61
Colorado Springs
Visit site
✟28,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree that the seperation of church and state has been way over done but that's not what this is about.
Not only did Judge Thompson usurp the power of Congress, he also took away the rights of every individual and state. The second half of the establishment clause of the First Amendment reads: "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This is precisely what one lower federal judge has done. He told Americans who disagree with his decision that he can and will prohibit the free exercise of their religion -- unless, of course, that religion is atheism. He stripped both Congress and the people of their rights. He set himself above the law because he considers himself to be the law.

The real issue here is federal judges being able to use their positions to implement their own belifs as law.
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,043
1,674
59
Tallahassee
✟91,060.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Christianity has thrived in the country due in no small part to the Seperation of Church and state. Look over in Europe. Countries that have state sponsored religions have seen huge declines in the numbers of Christians.

The Separation of Church and State is good for Christianity. Do you really want the government sponsoring your religion?
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Religious Crisis said:
The whole argument over keeping church and state sperate has been way over done, the founding fathers only wanted to keep a state run church from arising.
That is absolutely wrong. Below are some comments by James Madison, the chairman of the committee who wrote the 1st Amendment. You are repeating a lie that has been fabricated by Christian Reconstructionists.

*********************


The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).


Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Here is a nice one from the Supreme Court justice James Story regarding Article VI, Section III " but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) p 705

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd1.htm
 
Upvote 0

Mϋzikdϋde

Simply Fabulous
Sep 19, 2002
3,970
258
61
Colorado Springs
Visit site
✟28,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
crazyfingers said:
First off, this is the actual ruling involved. Glassroth vs Moore I suggest that you read it.

For the state to refrain from endorsing an opinion on religion does not make the state atheist.

Actions of state government and their representatives fall under the juristdiction of the 1st Amendment by way of the 14th Amendment.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


It is a basic fact of constitutional law that the 1st Amenement applies to state actions in this way. That you don't know that is revealing in and of itself.

Congress, along with 2/3 of the states passed the 14th Amendment and so congress did to it. Congress applied the 1st Amdnement to the states and state agents when it passed the 14th Amendment.


That's as simply false for the reasons given above.

Ok, I'm not trying to say that what he did was unconstitutional, it just bothers me that when a state judge makes a ruling on something like this we all just sit back and say "well that's it, the judge says it's illegal"
Glassroth vs. Moore even stated that the ten commandments are one of the most important sources of American law so what's the problem? Couldn't this stone have been placed for historical value and reference?
What am I missing here?
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,043
1,674
59
Tallahassee
✟91,060.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
muzikdude said:
Ok, I'm not trying to say that what he did was unconstitutional, it just bothers me that when a state judge makes a ruling on something like this we all just sit back and say "well that's it, the judge says it's illegal"
Glassroth vs. Moore even stated that the ten commandments are one of the most important sources of American law so what's the problem? Couldn't this stone have been placed for historical value and reference?
What am I missing here?
I may be wrong, but I think that Judge Moore's own comments about the purpose of the monument also played a role in the ruling. He stated repeatedly that he put the momunent their to "acknowledge God" and not for any historical purpose.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
muzikdude said:
Ok, I'm not trying to say that what he did was unconstitutional, it just bothers me that when a state judge makes a ruling on something like this we all just sit back and say "well that's it, the judge says it's illegal"
Given that the decision was appealed to the 11th court of appeals and the the 11th court agreed unanimously with the original ruling, I think that to say that this is one judge is not correct. Also note that Moore appealed directly to the Supreme COurt and the Supreme Court refused to get involved.

Glassroth vs. Moore even stated that the ten commandments are one of the most important sources of American law so what's the problem?

I believe that the court said that it might be. But even if it was that is not the point.

But I suggest that you read this from FindLaw.
The Ten Commandments and American Law:

Couldn't this stone have been placed for historical value and reference?
What am I missing here?
Courts are coming to a consensus that it may be OK to display the 10Cs if other historical documents are displayed with it. That is what's on the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme court is covered with historical documents and one happens to be the 10Cs.

Moore refused to allow other documents to be displayed along side his rock. Many attempts were made to to suggest ways to display the 10Cs along with other historical documents that were at least as significant and in most cases more relevent to US laws. All were flatly refused by Moore.

You do realize that the first 4 of the 10Cs would be unconstitutional to enact into law and that only 2 of the Cs, Murder and Stealing, are actually against the law? And even then the 10Cs don't get to claim ownwership of the ideas that murder and stealing are wrong. Those ideas come from multiple sources.

It is a very long stretch to say that the 10Cs are the source of our laws. I suggest again that you read the Findlaw article linked above.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Grizzly said:
He stated repeatedly that he put the momunent their to "acknowledge God" and not for any historical purpose.
That is also correct. He used exactly the wrong argument if he wanted his 10Cs to remain. His reason was exactly the reason that would make his actions unconstitutonal
 
Upvote 0

Mϋzikdϋde

Simply Fabulous
Sep 19, 2002
3,970
258
61
Colorado Springs
Visit site
✟28,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
crazyfingers said:
Given that the decision was appealed to the 11th court of appeals and the the 11th court agreed unanimously with the original ruling, I think that to say that this is one judge is not correct. Also note that Moore appealed directly to the Supreme COurt and the Supreme Court refused to get involved.



I believe that the court said that it might be. But even if it was that is not the point.

But I suggest that you read this from FindLaw.
The Ten Commandments and American Law:


Courts are coming to a consensus that it may be OK to display the 10Cs if other historical documents are displayed with it. That is what's on the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme court is covered with historical documents and one happens to be the 10Cs.

Moore refused to allow other documents to be displayed along side his rock. Many attempts were made to to suggest ways to display the 10Cs along with other historical documents that were at least as significant and in most cases more relevent to US laws. All were flatly refused by Moore.

You do realize that the first 4 of the 10Cs would be unconstitutional to enact into law and that only 2 of the Cs, Murder and Stealing, are actually against the law? And even then the 10Cs don't get to claim ownwership of the ideas that murder and stealing are wrong. Those ideas come from multiple sources.

It is a very long stretch to say that the 10Cs are the source of our laws. I suggest again that you read the Findlaw article linked above.
From Glassroth vs Moore:
“Based on the evidence presented during a week-long trial
and for the reasons that follow, this court holds that the
evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief
Justice violated the Establishment Clause. But, in announcing
this holding today, the court believes it is important to
clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is
improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in
government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten
Commandments are not important, if not one of the most
important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited
holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the
Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the
Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the
impermissible.”


I'll concede to being wrong on some points but the court definitely acknowledges the Ten Commandments as the basis for American law, at least in some part.
 
Upvote 0

Mϋzikdϋde

Simply Fabulous
Sep 19, 2002
3,970
258
61
Colorado Springs
Visit site
✟28,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I've been reading up on this and the conclusion that I've come to is that the court decided it was the motivation for the act, not the act itself, that is unconstitutional. If Moore had displayed the Ten Commandments along side an excerpt from the Koran and billed it as legal history then he would have been fine.
 
Upvote 0

Vxer1000

Provoking Thought
Sep 11, 2003
1,202
32
Waukegan, IL
✟24,029.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
crazyfingers said:
Given that the decision was appealed to the 11th court of appeals and the the 11th court agreed unanimously with the original ruling, I think that to say that this is one judge is not correct. Also note that Moore appealed directly to the Supreme COurt and the Supreme Court refused to get involved.



I believe that the court said that it might be. But even if it was that is not the point.

But I suggest that you read this from FindLaw.

Courts are coming to a consensus that it may be OK to display the 10Cs if other historical documents are displayed with it. That is what's on the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme court is covered with historical documents and one happens to be the 10Cs.

Moore refused to allow other documents to be displayed along side his rock. Many attempts were made to to suggest ways to display the 10Cs along with other historical documents that were at least as significant and in most cases more relevent to US laws. All were flatly refused by Moore.

You do realize that the first 4 of the 10Cs would be unconstitutional to enact into law and that only 2 of the Cs, Murder and Stealing, are actually against the law? And even then the 10Cs don't get to claim ownwership of the ideas that murder and stealing are wrong. Those ideas come from multiple sources.

It is a very long stretch to say that the 10Cs are the source of our laws. I suggest again that you read the Findlaw article linked above.

Isn't adultery illegal in some states? I know in the military it is grounds for punishment.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
muzikdude said:
From Glassroth vs Moore:
"nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law."

Don't you realize that that is simply a diplomatic way of saying that the court is not making a decision on that question?


 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
muzikdude said:
I've been reading up on this and the conclusion that I've come to is that the court decided it was the motivation for the act, not the act itself, that is unconstitutional. If Moore had displayed the Ten Commandments along side an excerpt from the Koran and billed it as legal history then he would have been fine.
It is very likely that if Moore had displayed the 10Cs in a way that it was one among many historical documents that it would have been allowed to stay. Diong so would have completely changed the nature of the display.

But Moore refused to do that. That was not what he wanted. He wanted specifically to promote his own religion above all other points of view.
 
Upvote 0

Mϋzikdϋde

Simply Fabulous
Sep 19, 2002
3,970
258
61
Colorado Springs
Visit site
✟28,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
crazyfingers said:
It is very likely that if Moore had displayed the 10Cs in a way that it was one among many historical documents that it would have been allowed to stay. Diong so would have completely changed the nature of the display.

But Moore refused to do that. That was not what he wanted. He wanted specifically to promote his own religion above all other points of view.
I agree but promoting this religion above all others is what Jesus asked us to do. He was wrong according to mans laws but he was right according to God's.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Vxer1000 said:
Isn't adultery illegal in some states? I know in the military it is grounds for punishment.

I am not aware of it being against the law in any state.

Regarding the military, that would not be a good argument. The Uniform code of military justice is not a good example for civil laws because they are not civil laws they are military laws.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
muzikdude said:
I agree but promoting this religion above all others is what Jesus asked us to do. He was wrong according to mans laws but he was right according to God's.
The question is not whether he was following his religion. The question is whether he was following the law accoridng to the constitution.

But I would argue that to try to force his religion onto others is immoral regardless of whether it's Christain or not.
 
Upvote 0