Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

OK...I'm calling out the hypocrites now.Most definitely!
Religion is not a Public Affair.

Just how far from perfect do you think it is?

I see figures showing the USA as having one of the highest prison populations in the world. What do you compare it to? China's is lower!I see my own countries justice system as flawed and in great need of an overhaul, The prison system in particular.
I consider yours to be inferior than ours. the word "Good" not good I think.

Nobody's saying it's perfect...that's what the law and justice are..Blind justice means it sees no colour...creed or religion..law itself is seperate from the individual....

stopped at a friends house with out calling first
daring aint I

It's not an ideal.....Those are the very principles of justice...It doesn't matter where they evolved from...It matters who they represent and protect and it's not just Christians...

The idea of jurisprudence came from ancient Rome. 3rd century BC. Look it up.

Simplify How, it's got nothing to do with religion in a court. Nice try though..Oh, don't dumb down on my account, I can handle my own.

Don't be sad

If you read what I wrote again, you might understand. If not, read it again...and again.....

Kinda like Sunday school!

Are laws and the Constitution not there to protect everybody...or just those who believe in the 10 commandments????? It wouldn't be very binding if it was only put in place to protect the rights of only one portion of the population....and I also believe laws are applicable and binding on all...not just those who believe in the 10 commandments!!!!!!!!Therefore does it not ring true then that a place sworn to uphold the law and it's priciples should be representative of the entire population....not just a portion!!!!!!!!!!

Law has no religion....people do...

Clocks with digital read out, now have a nice day buttons?Talk about stretching.....FFS

Awww come on, you can twist words better than that!

This wasn't direvted to you. Gnome needed clarification of the first ammendment.

He seems to think that the first ammendment does not apply to non believers.

Putting icons at the end of a statement doesn't make all cool.

No one said I had to look at it. But the gist is really that they should be allowed to be there is th first place. Hypocrites.

Here's the WHOLE imposing thing in a nutbag.

COMMANDMENT 1:

"I am the lord you god, you shall have no other before ME."

Not religious predjudice?

Are you people blind? Or can we just cut off the top part of that particular tablet.

Don't you think there'd be an UPROAR if what was on display was "he who turns his head on the Koran shall surely get the sword"

Oh, that's from the koran, gnome.... <there's my icon abuse for the day.everything is ok now right?

I don't think you have read the whole thread, I am thinking that you jumped in half way somewhere and formed an opinion on somebody's gist of a post? that is just my opinion you little peeper you

Geeeze, this thread sure did get twisted.

How can anyone compare the ten commandments to a clock on the wall or a particular colour of shirt.

Hanging them in a court of law where someone is "deciding your fate" or judging by one set of beliefs isn't fair to the ones that don't believe the same way. It's biased right from the start. Religion has no place in a court of law. Period!

If the 10 commandments has to be removed because it does infringe on your choice to not beleive or to believe in something else ok take it down! have your way!
But now I do not believe in Santa Claus the Easter Bunny and all other fictional caraters and there so many that really don't believe in them as well. So please right now! take down any all holliday decoration that has any implacation that relates to them! it infringes on my right to not believe! Please we all know they do not exist and yet Every Christmas we put up millions of santas, We dress like him and stand on the cornor ringing bells to dirve you nuts!
Do not ever outside of your own home or place of what ever you worship let your symbols of fiction be seen by any of us who does not believe in them. OMG! I will never step into a court and be judged by a man that has a picture of Santa up anywhere in his court room! Why would I want to be judged by a man that believes in a Santa I might recieve an unjust punishment, How can I beleive he is judging me in a fair and bias mannor if he is dumb enough to believe in Santa?
If it is fair for you to demand I remove something because I might believe in it and you dont that same law that allows you to take from me will also allow me to take from you! where does it end?

arent the churches enough or something

why the courthouses too - surely that 'is' imposing a view - either that or all religions be represented in the courthouses equally

I did jury service a while since over here and was offered a choice of oaths to swear, I think that was pretty fair really

It seems to me that the point of the Amendment was a limitiation on Congress, as to how it passes laws to establish a religion. The Judge and his court room are in the judical part of our government, than the legislative side....of which the Amendment was directed. The Judge was not establishing a religion, he was taking key thoughts of the
countries major faith to ornate his court room.

Could it not be construed that in placing the Ten commandement on his court walls, he was exercising his religion? Making a declaration to it, in a peaceful and open manner? That also falls in the next part of peaceably assembly.

He was not going to use the placed Ten Commandment to create any public havoc or disruption. Or even point to them as Judge Roy Beam (the Hanging Judge) did with the Bible and sentence a man to a hanging death. They were there both as a respected ornate symbols and as his free right to exercise his religion as he saw fit.jmo

I think that the courts got it wrong for what ever reason.

We had a similar issue here in my city. With a cross atop a city water tower. ACUL law suit were filed and the city forced to remove it. It seems to me that organizations that do use the courts to enforce thier 'view' of America have it wrong. They want the country to be nuetered to religion and faith, in ornate display, in spoken and written manner, in public place and even in private place. They wish it taken from public schools and end the open debate on the many issues and area of faith and religion bring in the academic area.

The constitution amendement was directed at the Congress. The elected voice of the people. When local parties raise a cross or place commandment up in such a manner they are using thier free will and voice directly and without the direction of the Congress. They are saying this is what we stand for.

The ACLU or other groups comes...and says....but that is not what
we stand for. Congress via this amendment never was empowered to
debate such a issue. The writers of the Constitution gave freedom of speech in the public setting a very open range. Locals that do place such religion smybols in my opionon are exercising thier right to free speech and freedom of religion.

Groups like ACLU are imposing court and government actions to hinder stands for a personal declaration. Does the ACLU have the right, via law or Constitution to direct what others stand for? Not in the Constitution or laws that I have read.

Each individual is open to embrace or reject a public or private religious symbol, as he chooses. But when a group says, that the display cannot be made, they take away the choice of embracing and they leave only a absence of choice. They silent the debate in America to the issue of faith and religion in class room, public building and private house.

I am a little taken aback to find we are in agreement as my experience of your positions is that you make little or no room for opposing viewpoints. Your responses frequently imply thst disagreement with your point of view is the sign of a lesser mind.

To juxtapose the ten commandments with Dr. Seuss as you did in response to goose is almost certain to be read as an insult. Your courtroom has the bible, goose would decorate his walls from childrens books? To insult with smiling civility is still to insult. As always it is the intent and the inference created, not the words themselves that count.

In this one case I agree, display is not imposition