Would you feel the same way if it were a satanist monument or a monument displaying verses from the Quaran? I'll bet you that the same fundamentalists fighting to keep the Ten Commandments up would be fighting tear it down if it were displaying something from any religion but Christianity.
The above quote was basically a story told by a National Park Ranger, a federal employee, to tourists in Hawaii. And in numerous National Parks, there are signs quoting Chief Seattle or someone with something like "The Earth is Our Mother and We must Honor Our Mother".Pele was born of the female spirit Haumea, or Hina, who, like all other important Hawai'i gods and goddesses, descended from the supreme beings, Papa, or Earth Mother, and Wakea, Sky Father. Pele was among the first voyagers to sail to Hawai'i, pursued, legends say, by her angry older sister, Na-maka-o-kaha'i because Pele had seduced her husband. Pele landed first on Kaua'i, but every time she thrust her o'o (digging stick) into the earth to dig a pit for her home, Na-maka-o-kaha'i, goddess of water and the sea, would flood the pits. Pele moved down the chain of islands in order of their geological formation, eventually landing on the Big Island's Mauna Loa, which is considered the tallest mountain on earth when measured from its base at the bottom of the ocean.
Stealing, murdering, and committing perjury is illegal. It still goes on, of course, but it is illegal.
A gift? Donation? Deco? For the hell of it?
Describing a local religion's beliefs is not an establishment of religion. The Ranger is not telling anyone what to believe, he's describing historical information.The above quote was basically a story told by a National Park Ranger, a federal employee, to tourists in Hawaii.
It depends upon the context of the display.Not sure why so many people get so upset over the 10 Commandments but don't mind this other nonsense.
Because some of us don't want a religion shoved down our throats by the state.But why do so many get so upset over silly things that provide comfort to others at no cost or pain to themselves?
I have no problem with the 10 Commandments being on a public building, as long as those of the Muslim faith are allowed to also put verses from the Quran on it.
Describing a local religion's beliefs is not an establishment of religion. The Ranger is not telling anyone what to believe, he's describing historical information.
Putting a monument to the Ten Commandments on public lands is not the same as describing a religious belief. If the intent is to promulgate a religion, and it's on public land, it's a problem. Sometimes the courts let it slide because the intent is allegedly historical; e.g. if you have a display of 20 different historical legal documents that include the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta and the Constitution of the Athenians, and the Ten Commandments is one among many (and is not, for example, 20 times larger than the others), I'd say you have a decent argument in favor of historicity. Courts occasionally apply the "Lemon Test" to help determine whether or not a given display runs afoul of the injunction against an establishment of religion.
It depends upon the context of the display.
If there is a plaque that has a quasi-religious aspect (e.g. "the Earth is our mother") then even if it's religious in origin, it's not necessarily a problem. It may be historical in nature, its meaning may be secular, and so forth. If there is a plaque that basically says "this deity orders you to follow these legal principles," that's an establishment of religion.
Because some of us don't want a religion shoved down our throats by the state.
Would you feel the same way if it were a satanist monument or a monument displaying verses from the Quaran? I'll bet you that the same fundamentalists fighting to keep the Ten Commandments up would be fighting tear it down if it were displaying something from any religion but Christianity.
You are performing right up to my expectations of you talking around the q again. Once again, my question. Just answer it. Is that too much to ask, or are you only able to just keep dancing around it instead of giving an answer?
Do you or do you not have a problem if Muslims in a town put verses from the Quran on their government walls?
some are very cool... some are stone cold assholes with no redeeming qualities.
National News - WEAR ABC Channel 3
I get so sick of this idiotic crap. Nowhere in the Constitution is this judge's decision supported. No law has been passed by Congress that gives preference of one religion over any other in this case. This is nothing more than some dumbass getting all butt-hurt over the Ten being displayed and deciding to sue to get it removed.
So you don't mind the Flying Spaghetti monster monument on a city hall lawn? Or a large tablet with notable verses of the Quran? Or a menorah? An offering to the god Osiris? A statue of Aphrodite? What is okay or not or just a free for all so no one gets butt hurt over a religion being displayed?
Why do you think it should be there? What purpose does it serve? And why are you offended that it's not there?
Describing a local religion's beliefs is not an establishment of religion. The Ranger is not telling anyone what to believe, he's describing historical information.
If there is a plaque that has a quasi-religious aspect (e.g. "the Earth is our mother") then even if it's religious in origin, it's not necessarily a problem. It may be historical in nature, its meaning may be secular, and so forth. If there is a plaque that basically says "this deity orders you to follow these legal principles," that's an establishment of religion.
Because some of us don't want a religion shoved down our throats by the state.
Apparently the judicial system we have here would disagree with you. Case in point the OPNo, posting the Ten Commandments is not " promulgating " a religion.
ChristianityIf it were, which religion would it be " promulgating " ?
Then what's the fuss about if "modern christians" don't care about them either. Who then is fighting to keep them present? Aetheists? Muslims? Satanists? Oh that's right only the ChristiansThe Ten Commandments are pre-Christ which means modern Christians aren't bound by the old law of the Commandments
No they don't. The appear nowhere in the Quoran except in interpreting particular verses to equate to the same or similar meaning.Islam believes the Commandments are a integral part of their Quaranic laws and ethics.
This is my understanding as wellThey also believe Moses was a Prophet and a Teacher.
Your right it is. Article 3 specifically places interpretation of the constitution in the USSC and it's inferior courts hands.The Constitution is very clear on this issue.
And we should all thank our lucky star's the framers were astute enough to place that clause in there." Congress shall make NO LAWS respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
No one said it did. You created that assertion in order to try and defend your weak understanding of how our Government and legal system work. Ultimately it is the USSCs responsibility to interpret the laws and constitution not every Tom, Dick or Harry's. Don't like the Job they're doing? Elect the right people to nominate and confirm the Justices you would like to see benched. The funny thing is that the USSC is historically conservative in nature and friendly to Christian theology, particularly now, and even they seem to disagree with you." Promulgating " doesn't equate to making laws.
Apparently the judicial system we have here would disagree with you. Case in point the OP
Christianity
Then what's the fuss about if "modern christians" don't care about them either. Who then is fighting to keep them present? Aetheists? Muslims? Satanists? Oh that's right only the Christians
No they don't. The appear nowhere in the Quoran except in interpreting particular verses to equate to the same or similar meaning.
This is my understanding as well
Your right it is. Article 3 specifically places interpretation of the constitution in the USSC and it's inferior courts hands.
And we should all thank our lucky star's the framers were astute enough to place that clause in there.
No one said it did. You created that assertion in order to try and defend your weak understanding of how our Government and legal system work. Ultimately it is the USSCs responsibility to interpret the laws and constitution not every Tom, Dick or Harry's. Don't like the Job they're doing? Elect the right people to nominate and confirm the Justices you would like to see benched. The funny thing is that the USSC is historically conservative in nature and friendly to Christian theology, particularly now, and even they seem to disagree with you.
I am curioushow do you know this particular judge's political affiliation? Do you even know the name of the judge? Can you point to other rulings this judge has made that would support your claim?One left wing activist judge's ruling does not a "Judicial System " make.
Quite possiblyHis ruling will be appealed, as it should be.
Well at least you are correct about something regarding the constitutionThe Constitution is a document made of words written in ENGLISH.
I could go through the process of showing you how the definitions of words actually do change over time, but that lesson would be wasted on you. Besides it's the interpretation of the document that's important. And that job is left to the judicial system alone.The definition of those words has never changed.
Couldn't the same be said about your interpretation of it? Then again your interpretation (or mine for that matter) doesn't matter now does it?The ONLY thing thats changed is how those words are interpreted as desperate activist seek to undermine our founding documents based on a variety of twisted motivations.
Do you have any evidence that supports this assertion?The Judges decision wasn't based on the definition of the First Amendment, it was based on his adherence to a twisted ideology
This is freaking precious! The fact that it is a "living" document ALLOWED for the insertion of the bill of rights. If it wasn't amendable you could not own guns, women couldn't vote and black people would still be slaves. Are you really asking for a revert to the Constitution where there is no Bill of rights or other ammendments?A Constitution thats " living '', or that can be corrupted based on the whims of extremely short sighted individuals is NOT a Constitution any more.
I have many muslim friends some extremely devout, after reading your post I actually called one and ask re: the 10 commandments. You are completely wrong and / or misinformed.Also, you should educate yourself on the MANY connections between Islam and the Old Testament.
see above.With the exception of the 4rth Comamndemnt they consider them a integral part of their Quaranic teachings.
Nice.Please publish a section of the Muslim roll of butt wipe that in the slightest way resembles The Ten Commandments.
Uh. Have you actually read the Ten Commandments lately?I don't see any Christian ties to the 10 as they should apply to all peoples of the world.
Please publish a section of the Muslim roll of butt wipe that in the slightest way resembles The Ten Commandments. I don't see any Christian ties to the 10 as they should apply to all peoples of the world. It is ignornant Americans that attack anything that their beloved government does not like. Piss on the feds.
Our Bill of Rights is supposed to protect all forms of religion not deny religion.... Displaying the Ten Commandments is hardly pandering or even supporting a specific religion....
I'm not the biggest Bill Mahr fan (or hardly a fan at all) however he did once say something I completely agree with: "Since when did atheists turn into vampires?"
Since when did the US become an anti-religious nation?
The idea behind the First Amendment was to ban theocratic government - not ban religion.
It is perfectly constitutional for all religions to display their idols or religious symbols - even on alleged government or communal property.
Furthermore I find it ironic that most of our basic laws are derived from the Ten Commandments yet people, er better yet the atheist religion has a problem with them being displayed???
I would love to know which of the Ten Commandments these atheists disagree with? Either way they certainly disagree with our Bill of Rights....
It is not the funding but the message.I agree. It was funded by private sources.
That is because it does not exist.They don't care much for natural law either.
So you wold be OK then with a test making sure that say the next batch of senators were all Muslim? You know, an unwritten law, but just as effective?but can you tell me how having a monument on a piece of property is law?
The constitution prohibits law making on reglious matters
Yet when bans against gay marriage were struck down you opposed them. Nice hypocrisy...Man, there are always crazies that want to ban something. I'm not one of them BTW, as a matter of fact I think "bans" are evil....
And what is the message? And what makes the message something that should not appear on state owned property? If the people of a certain community want to raise funds for a monument to Allah and the city council approves of that use, why should it be forbidden to a free people?It is not the funding but the message.
So you wold be OK then with a test making sure that say the next batch of senators were all Muslim? You know, an unwritten law, but just as effective?
1) No, I do not.
2) You didn't ask that specific question, so stop acting to my full expectations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?