Ohio judge can't post Ten Commandments in courtroom

Pete said:
For a judge in a courtroom, less bias is better than more bias.
Click to expand...

Regardless, the bias remains, it is still futility. The Constitution has failed in it's efforts and has therefore been established as vanity.

I didn't know judges were supposed to be so complacent anyhow..

EDIT: Just for the record, why are stupid psychic ads on this page, it doesn't even have anything to do with..
 
Bias is not an all-or-nothing item. I believe that most judges would be very insulted if you suggested that because they can't be perfectly unbiased, they're no different to the most corrupt official to ever take a kickback.

Is it futility to penalise speeding, because people will speed anyway?
Is it futility to treat cancer sufferers, because some will die anyway?
Is it futility to discuss ethics, because few will listen anyway?
 
Regardless, the bias remains, it is still futility.
Click to expand...

I wish to revisit a point of our prior discussion:

• 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.

To look at this from a different angle than we did before, I look to your assertion noted above. It is not futility. The Constitution is not vanity. The difference is whether that human bias exists within the private or public spheres. The degree to which a judge's religious faith affects his judgment is his own, until he takes that faith out of his head and makes it a public issue.
 
§outh§tar 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.
Click to expand...

Not in the courtroom he doesn't. He is merely an employee of a secular government, and the courtroon belongs to the people, not him. As there is a constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state, he is not permitted to adorn the courtroom this way. What is it that you don't grasp?


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"?
Click to expand...

Missing my point entirely. What about pages from the Torah, Talmud, Koran, some Buddhist Koans, the 'Book of the Dead', etc? If you want to live _your_ life by the ten commandments, fine, _you_ go do that. I personally wish to be judged in this context, by the law, and the law alone, not some extra set of rules that are the Judge's purely personal opinion of what is right and wrong.


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?
Click to expand...

Yes, that EXACTLY what I'm saying. The founding fathers did not base the constitution on the ten commandments, and went as far as to separate church and state. The 'In god we trust' crap on the currency is revisionist nonsense, and not what the country was built on.

Do you really think the ten commandments hold an equal rank as law? That they aren't some personal code? America is the most materialistic society there is, and somehow, you think this fits with the ideology outlined in the tenth commandment? You rave Sir!
 
§outh§tar said:
"I don't like abortion," Kerry said. "I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist. ... We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

Should we obey the law or do the right thing? Your pick
Click to expand...
Both. Just because you THINK it is right, doesn't mean it actually is. Especially when you can't back up your claim and a whole slew of people disagree with you.
 
Enigma'07 said:
Why should he leave God out of the picture when America was founded on Christian beliefs?
Click to expand...

Founded on Christian beliefs? Please do support this argument. I'm especially curious to see how it would apply to the justice system, tell me, in what aspect of Christianity is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven evident? No one of faith can claim to hold the idea that there is nothing until it is empirically proven otherwise. Kind of a round about, point, but that's what I was in the mood for.
 
§outh§tar said:
You don't suppose there would ever be a time in the future when the courtroom will be COMPLETELY void of bias do you?
Click to expand...

I very much doubt that anyone does beleive this, but that doesn't mean we should go and start building monuments to our bias and flaunting them for all to see.
 
Persol said:
Both. Just because you THINK it is right, doesn't mean it actually is. Especially when you can't back up your claim and a whole slew of people disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Very well. Because a "whole slew of people" disagree, that MUST mean I am in the wrong.

Quite sorry!
 
Don't it doesn't mean you MUST be wrong... it just mean you MIGHT be wrong. You don't go and force your opinions on someone else when you have nothing more than them to back up your view.
 
phlogistician said:
Not in the courtroom he doesn't. He is merely an employee of a secular government, and the courtroon belongs to the people, not him. As there is a constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state, he is not permitted to adorn the courtroom this way. What is it that you don't grasp?


Missing my point entirely. What about pages from the Torah, Talmud, Koran, some Buddhist Koans, the 'Book of the Dead', etc? If you want to live _your_ life by the ten commandments, fine, _you_ go do that. I personally wish to be judged in this context, by the law, and the law alone, not some extra set of rules that are the Judge's purely personal opinion of what is right and wrong.


Yes, that EXACTLY what I'm saying. The founding fathers did not base the constitution on the ten commandments, and went as far as to separate church and state. The 'In god we trust' crap on the currency is revisionist nonsense, and not what the country was built on.

Do you really think the ten commandments hold an equal rank as law? That they aren't some personal code? America is the most materialistic society there is, and somehow, you think this fits with the ideology outlined in the tenth commandment? You rave Sir!
Click to expand...

It seems you misunderstood me. I never said or otherwise implied that it "fits" with American culture. That is more than obvious... I only propose remedy. I have however reviewed your points as you have reviewed mine and noticed your abstract viewpoint, which is entirely rational..
 
Watch the Christian fundamentalist brain zigzag twist and flip-flop as it tries to come up with a good reason for why a secular society which attempts to protect people of all religious creeds fairly, should be allowed to openly claim such statements as "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" attributed to an Abrahamic god, as the basis for our laws.
 
Persol said:
Don't it doesn't mean you MUST be wrong... it just mean you MIGHT be wrong. You don't go and force your opinions on someone else when you have nothing more than them to back up your view.
Click to expand...

I wasn't FORCING anything, it seems everyone is accusing me of that when I haven't forced anything on anyone!

I continuously marvel at this constant accusation of me being intolerant in this discussion when by an actual review...

Some people may wish is to be separate, that's ok with me. It doesn't kill me or hurt me in any way!
 
SpyMoose said:
Watch the Christian fundamentalist brain zigzag twist and flip-flop as it tries to come up with a good reason for why a secular society which attempts to protect people of all religious creeds fairly, should be allowed to openly claim such statements as "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" attributed to an Abrahamic god, as the basis for our laws.
Click to expand...

Now because he hanged a poster of the ten commandments, they are being allowed to be "the basis for our laws"... :rolleyes:
 
Your argument all along is that they are valid and appropriate in a courtroom setting because they are the basis of the US's laws. This would be one of those flip flops I accused you of making. And because your defence of this judge seems to have degenerated to the point where all you have is sass and emoticons, I think I'll wink at you. ;)
 
§outh§tar said:
The Constitution has failed in it's efforts and has therefore been established as vanity.
Click to expand...

I'm not one to use this sort of argument very often, but really when you think of the constitution in such terms, then honestly I think it might be time for you to vacate the country.
 
SpyMoose said:
Your argument all along is that they are valid and appropriate in a courtroom setting because they are the basis of the US's laws. This would be one of those flip flops I accused you of making. And because your defence of this judge seems to have degenerated to the point where all you have is sass and emoticons, I think I'll wink at you. ;)
Click to expand...

You are mistaking me with Enigma'07.
 
Mystech said:
I'm not one to use this sort of argument very often, but really when you think of the constitution in such terms, then honestly I think it might be time for you to vacate the country.
Click to expand...

Do you work for the government too?
 
§outh§tar said:
I wasn't FORCING anything, it seems everyone is accusing me of that when I haven't forced anything on anyone!

I continuously marvel at this constant accusation of me being intolerant in this discussion when by an actual review...

Some people may wish is to be separate, that's ok with me. It doesn't kill me or hurt me in any way!
Click to expand...
That's the problem though... it's not about you specifically. This judge is FORCING his beliefs on another person 'in a court of law'. It has no place there.

More so, it has no place in government at all.
 
Persol said:
That's the problem though... it's not about you specifically. This judge is FORCING his beliefs on another person 'in a court of law'. It has no place there.
Click to expand...

Well as far as I can see the other person does not have to read it either. Unless you are saying the judge IS forcing him to acknowledge the commandments in court? This is aside of your last sentence, mind you.

Now unless the judge has a GIANT poster with a neon sign condemning anyone who does not bow to the poster or something like that I see no harm and no foul.

Again, this is aside of whether it lawfully has a place in court or not since that has previously been established.
 
So if a judge had translations of the Koran hanging from the wall, you'd have no problem with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top