Ohio judge can't post Ten Commandments in courtroom
- Thread starter §outh§tar
- Start date
How about respecting other people's rights and beliefs? How about admitting that you don’t have a stranglehold on the truth? How about tending to your own personal business and letting others attend to theirs?§outh§tar said:
It’s irreligious. The Founding Fathers had enough wisdom to understand that faith is a personal matter. They had enough respect for religion to realize that it should not be a matter of politics but of philosophy. They had the experience of living under a Christian Nation and to observe first hand the consequence of mixing religion and government.
~Raithere
I’m sorry, but the historical excuse is an obvious ploy. If the Judge were interested in providing a historical reference why didn’t he display Ur-Nammu's Code, the earliest known legal code, or the Magna Carta? How about the Bill of Rights?okinrus said:
Indeed. We also had to put up with Reagan who was said to have consulted astrologers. But there is a difference between Reagan consulting an astrologer and replacing the official seal behind his podium with the zodiac, wouldn’t you agree? Can you honestly not see the difference?
~Raithere
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -Thomas Jefferson
I would like to point out that within the 10 commandments only 6, 7, 8 and 9 are of any relevence to law and justice of any kind.
(6,7,8,9 being: Thou shalt not, murder, commit adultery (relevent in divorce only) Steal, and give false testimony.)
I beleive the first commandment alone is enough to prove that they are discriminatory. "thou shalt have no other god before me".
The judge is there to sit impartially upon a case and mediate and in the end give his ruling based on a will of the people. The very fact that he would post the commandments in his court of law, a place of supposed impartiality is enough to prove that he would automatically be biased towards someone who is not of christian faith. Whether it be his brother or someone he has never met.
(6,7,8,9 being: Thou shalt not, murder, commit adultery (relevent in divorce only) Steal, and give false testimony.)
I beleive the first commandment alone is enough to prove that they are discriminatory. "thou shalt have no other god before me".
The judge is there to sit impartially upon a case and mediate and in the end give his ruling based on a will of the people. The very fact that he would post the commandments in his court of law, a place of supposed impartiality is enough to prove that he would automatically be biased towards someone who is not of christian faith. Whether it be his brother or someone he has never met.
Raithere said:
If such was the case then I shouldn't be subjected to "irreligiousness" in the court either, as that is not my "own personal business". It's not about a live and let live policy, otherwise we wouldn't have this ruling because the judge would not be intimidated by foolish atheists and malicious propagandists.
If someone doesn't believe in God, does that mean they have the "right" to tear apart Church and state wherever a union may lie?
This part of my response was directed at your question, “Should we obey the law or do the right thing?” rather than directly at the topic. Try rereading it in that context.§outh§tar said:
The judge isn’t being intimidated; he was ruled to be in violation of the constitution. No one has ever said he cannot believe what he wants; he just doesn’t have the right to post it in the courtroom.
There are many people who believe in God but object to the union of Church and State. It really doesn’t have anything to do with religion. It’s about government and politics. But the answer is, yes. We’re all protected by the Constitution. And while you might not like it that you can’t post your Ten Commandments on the courtroom wall I’m sure you’re quite happy that the Satanists can’t post theirs. So what makes you think that your faction is due special consideration?
What’s the point other than propaganda? Let’s say that we amended the constitution to include the Ten Commandments, will that ‘save’ anybody? Will any additional people go to Heaven because they now must legally follow the Ten Commandments? Or is you religion deeper than such superficialities? Honestly, do you ever think about what Jesus was talking about when he was repeatedly accused of breaking the law? Do you understand why he called such people hypocrites?
~Raithere
§outh§tar said:
Are you saying, that because of your personal beliefs, everywhere, courts, and other public places _should_ bear the sigils of your religion?
That's exactly what it IS about. Look, there are many, many world religions, and you couldn't list the credos of them allon the wall, and if you did, we'd just end up in another piss fight over which was on top of the list. So, those wise founding fathers realised it was best to not mention it. If you feel your religion in your heart, aftetr all, you don't need it splaying over every wall.
And writing the ten commandments on a wall isn't propoganda? Who's the fool?
THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL separation of church and state, don't you grasp that? There is no union. The US is NOT a christian country, despite what some people claim. 'In god we trust' was added to currency from 1955, during the McCarthyist witch hunts. Russia was officailly a communist country, and this opportunity was seized by religious zealots in the USA to promote their own incredibly unconstitutional agenda (not like they weren't treading all over the 1st amendment by stifling free speech about other political systems anyway.)
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-715prayer,0,6605574.story?coll=sfla-news-florida
I think this interesting article should be useful in this discussion?
I think this interesting article should be useful in this discussion?
phlogistician said:
I'm saying if that's the case, then the judge has as much freedom to bear the ten commandments as an atheist has to protest such an action. I don't see how the judge should be supressed that the disbeliever must be exalted.
The fool is the one who insists putting the ten commandments on the wall is infringing on his/her rights at the disadvantage of the one putting up the ten commandments? Certainly who is to say such a maestro of folly has the greater "right"?
Do you therefore insinuate that the US is in NO WAY run (continuously) by some sort of religious moral, such as those found in the ten commandments?
Raithere said:
Oh, so now you're turning the religion thing on me?
The law is there because it will be broken. We have laws pertaining to murder because people do and will murder. If there was no law, then whatever transgression transpired would be in no way considered lawlessness, and consequently whether or not the ten commandments are hung in the courtroom does not influence lawful proceedings.
If satanists were however to propagate their doctrine of malice, you can surely see how there would be a problem there. satan is recognized as a dispenser of lies, yes, even by his "worshippers". and even you must agree, this cannot be admitted in a court of law.
cyberia said:
Surely you cannot believe this! Because there is a plaque of the ten commandments on the wall means that he is going to treat a Christian offender better than an atheist offender? That is not even Christian in the first place! This is the point I tried to make in my earlier post, so a polytheist comes in and points out the accused of robbing her in broad daylight. The judge is going to be discriminatory because theres a plaque of the ten commandments on the wall?
If that is the case, by YOUR argument, then an atheist judge is going to DISCRIMINATE against Christians for believing in God.
A judge must be able to separate their personal beliefs from their judicial role. Essentially, when a judge steps into the courtroom, their personal beliefs and biases should be left outside.
If a judge were to put a poster on the wall of their courtroom that said "There is no God", then I would suspect that that judge has not left their personal beliefs and biases outside the courtroom, and demand the poster to be removed.
Similarly, if a judge were to put a poster of the Ten Commandments on the wall of their courtroom, then I would suspect that that judge has not left their personal beliefs and biases outside the courtroom, and demand the poster to be removed.
The judiciary should be neither religious nor unreligious. The judiciary should remain silent on the matter of religion.
If a judge were to put a poster on the wall of their courtroom that said "There is no God", then I would suspect that that judge has not left their personal beliefs and biases outside the courtroom, and demand the poster to be removed.
Similarly, if a judge were to put a poster of the Ten Commandments on the wall of their courtroom, then I would suspect that that judge has not left their personal beliefs and biases outside the courtroom, and demand the poster to be removed.
The judiciary should be neither religious nor unreligious. The judiciary should remain silent on the matter of religion.
I assert that it is a fair consideration according to Equal Protection.
Consider your question to Pete:
What's in the judge's mind is his own, and within his own domain. Tacking those opinions on the courthouse walls thrusts them into the public domain, where they are inappropriate.
No, my assumption is that personal religion is not so superficial which is causing me difficulty in figuring out what the motivation is for broadcasting religion in this manner is. In my experience this is common, that when religion turns to politics it loses its humanity.§outh§tar said:
Of course, you failed to answer my questions so I will leave it at that.
~Raithere
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." Right ... people start doing that, and the economy completely collapses.
Not to mention, "Thou shalt not kill" is the only illegal thing on the list, although lying would also be illegal in the context of perjury.
Not to mention, "Thou shalt not kill" is the only illegal thing on the list, although lying would also be illegal in the context of perjury.