Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

In God We Trust didn't become a part of anything until well over one hundred years after the Constitution, the Declaration of independence, and the Bill of Rights.

Check your history.

Religious freedom is just that. Freedom.

Saying "God" is hypocritical to the idea of the first ammendment.

What if I worship Bhudda, Zeus, Ra, or even myself?

Hey lady it is your thread, and I will apologize and walk away if necessary, You seem to have a far more copious way about you, than I have been able to muster, although I have apologized and still been left on a thread talking to my self

Having a good night?

To run the court system with no human emotion is Ludacris! Maybe we should get rid of all Judges and have our court be nothing more then a computer. We have the know how, just program a computer feed the information of the crime into the computer, and accept the fine or time you need to pay. You won't need a lawyer! there is no arguing to a computer. You did something that was a mistake you didn't mean to do it, it was an accident. Plead with the murcy of the court, Oh yeah there is no mercy you did it go to jail! next. While we are at it lets go a step further. Why do we need a president or any poloticians lets just program a computer to run the country? We wont have to be concerned with a computers back ground, or the back ground of the computers family. Never was there a computer that smoked pot but just did not inhale! Never has a computer lied to the public never did it cheat on it's wife. Don't we want the country to be run with no emotion or feelings?
But before you start making software to replace our judges better think do you want to take your son or daughter back to court and have that slap on the wrist revoked and found guilty? How many people have been in court for one reason or another, and felt that if they had gotten the extent of what the law could give it would have been a lot worse? Are you ready to go back and face a computer that can not see in your face how sorry and scared you are, a computer that is not going to give you any chance of walking out with out paying for what you did?
I am starting to see here a very bad sifi movie. Ok so thats an axageration, or is it? Is not the governor of CA the Terminator? Wasn't that world run by emotionless computers?
The basic artical here though is the 10 commandments in a court room. Ok so with it being there, half the population does not believe that God has any buisness in the courts.
Tell me how many people did it fall down on and leave brain dammaged? How many people did it bite? If you don't beleive in them the don't read them! Simple! you say it infringes on your right on what you believe or don't. I don't see how? And what about the other half of the people who do believe? You can beleive what you like and if they ofend you don't look at them! the other half who does beleive, where it wont bite you or cause you harm, for them it maybe there one shred of hope. Arnt we infringing on the beleivers more?
I personally don't know that I beleive in God, but the 10 comandments does not ofend me, And I guess if it did I would turn my head away from them. But I will fight for the rights of all that does beleive. They have the right to see them and give them hope!
And one last question? It is ok to fire a judge for not wanting to take down the 10 comandments, But havn't you overlooked the fact that you are sworn in and beleived to be telling the truth only because you have sworn with you hand on the bible that you will? Why should it be right, a judge be taken from the bench for not removing the 10 comandments and the judge who takes over allows you to swear on a bible isn't that a little hypocritical????

I would like to point out that 'Freedom' carries with it the caveat of "responsible exercise thereof'. Your 'freedom' to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

I dont see how saying 'God' violates the 1st ammendmant- in fact to stop me om saying "God' is more a violation.

You have the freedom to wworship as you wish so long as your worship does not infringe in a tangible way with my right of free worship (or any of my other rights).

I fail to see how the posting of wisdom in a courthouse (ie- the 10 commandments) infringes upon anyone's freedom in a tangible sense.

He could have had it, just not in the way that he wanted to display it. He could have displayed the ten commandmants as part of adisplay of historical documents that our laws are based on, but he wouldn't have that.

Roy Moore is a fraud and a hypocrite, IMO, and just used the issue and made a bigger deal out of it than it would have been, thinking it would win him votes. It back-fired on him. He made this huge monument and had it installed in the courthouse under cover of darkness, knowing that it would be against the law. If a judge can't abide by the law, even if he doesn't like it or agree with it, he has no business being a judge. He's not for religious freedom, he's for freedom for himself to do whatever he wants to do. He also made a statement that he wouldn't allow a Muslim to give an opening prayer in his court, but he wants that right for himself.

I've been following this for several years, before the rest of the country even knew who he was. I thought he was genuine at first. As a matter of fact, he did have the ten commandments in his courtroom for years, when he was just an appointed county judge. It wasn't until he was running for a judgeship that it became an issue. He made it one.

He's the worst kind of politician, one who panders to the fears and biases of the lowest common denominator of the society he is in. Not someone that Christians should hold up as a role model. He is like the hypocrites that Jesus said not to be like, praying in the streets to be seen by others, they already have their reward.

Just where the hell have you been???? I have been trying to convey just such these messages and here you come in here in a snap! and sum it up, well I thank you you have deffo gotten the jist the point and all the around! I toast you

Where does the 10 commandments interfere with a judge or any other person being able to listen to facts to hear a case and judge on what is presented to them? ...
If a judge can be persuaded in his desission by a piece of carved stone enough so as to not be able to carry out his duty in justice then I would not want him on a bench anyway with or with out the rock. But that is not the case.

Well Thank you, for giving my chance to voice my opinion, I really thought I was well on my way to ticking everyone off. No intent to do that! But I do feel that we are headed for (excuse the expression) Gods Wrath And our Government is leading the way.
We need to pull back from our government and reunite!
We seperate Church from state and thats good The church is man practicing his religion and the Pope or any other religious leader has no right to run the justice system. But God is not a church.
The ten commandments does not say thou shalt kill thou shall steel, it does not tell us to kill there is nothing offensive in it.
Does the comandments tell us to be predjuist, it does not say anything about being found guilty becuase you are white black chinese
Where does the 10 commandments interfere with a judge or any other person being able to listen to facts to hear a case and judge on what is presented to them?
I don't see the 10 commandments as a threat to any way of life.
And as it was said to me earlier, The bible could as well be a menu thats how much we pay attention to God in the court. Just so happens this happend to be larger then a bible.
And there is a lot less offence to be taken from the commandments then what is written in the bible. And that still exists in the courts. And it means nothing just a book with words could be a menu! well the commandments is just rock could be a piece of art.
If a judge can be persuaded in his desission by a piece of carved stone enough so as to not be able to carry out his duty in justice then I would not want him on a bench anyway with or with out the rock. But that is not the case.
And I will open up a new can of worms for you all. Now that the commandments are removed and the judge as well Shall we go back and try every case that judge resided before? Because it sounds to me that people believe his ability to stay bias was impared by the 10 commandment. If I had been before him and did not like the out come and was reading some of the comments I have seen here I would be screamming miss trial! I am innocent I tell you those 10 commandments convicted me!
OMG! I think we should take those commandments and put them to good use Beat Bush with them! then sell them to the pope to fund bringing home our men and women home from Iraq!
And to take back our country! beleive it or not it is our country and we should act like it is!

Well I like your post and I like them a lot but what I think we have here are two problems in my thread, the ones that are on the boat to keep the ten commandments and the ones that are not, to ME it is a right and wrong manual and us humans(remember earlier when you were talking that we are NOT computers but humans now)need that, we need to know when you can cross the line based on our beliefs(hence you earlier parts of your post about going before a judge and not a computer)and when to go unemotional, yea I don't think that is going to happen, so in saying to you I would most deffo go before a judge, being human of course to clarify things here, go before a judge that believes in Good, in a God fearing way so that when he uses his beliefs and morals and ethics, which are all good then I know he will also have compassion because after all that is what religion is all about

I agree with your way of thinking! I would never want to go infront of a judge to have him decide the fate of my life and know there is no commpassion for the circumstances that suround the charges.
If another man is going to be sitting in judgement of me as a lot of people feel God will do in the end, The he better have have commpassion as they say God has. If your going to play God and pass judgment, on me I would feel so much better knowing you have some true convictions. And not just programed to see the black and white of the issue. Not everything is cut and dry, Some times a judge has to use what human resorses he may have to make a sound desission.
No one is ever going to on every aspect of the issues, But then that is whats so great about this country we are allowed to debate any issue, we are allowed speak our opinions.

Would it make a difference to any of us if the 10 commandments had been written by George Washington and not a burning bush?

The fact is is it was not written by them but most and I say that losely, most, people would go by the ten commandments how hard can it be?! to me they are facts of how we should be and act written down, maybe it is easier to cast stones and act like we don't live in glass houses

I would like to point out that 'Freedom' carries with it the caveat of "responsible exercise thereof'. Your 'freedom' to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

I dont see how saying 'God' violates the 1st ammendmant- in fact to stop me om saying "God' is more a violation.

You have the freedom to wworship as you wish so long as your worship does not infringe in a tangible way with my right of free worship (or any of my other rights).

I fail to see how the posting of wisdom in a courthouse (ie- the 10 commandments) infringes upon anyone's freedom in a tangible sense.

Actually by saying "God" you violate the litteral meaning of the first ammendment, gnome.

It is a Biblical God that you referred to, not a morse god, an egyptian god, or any other. List them all if you're going to list one.

And the Posting of the ten commandments, though it does not infringe on YOUR rights, it certainly would offend a budist, a taoist, or all those that worship NO god.

and I think it was Bev that made the best point. If the 10cs were displayed along side the Book of the Dead or the Eddas, as a historical collection, it would be a different thing all together.

Actually by saying "God" you violate the litteral meaning of the first ammendment, gnome.

It is a Biblical God that you referred to, not a morse god, an egyptian god, or any other. List them all if you're going to list one.

And the Posting of the ten commandments, though it does not infringe on YOUR rights, it certainly would offend a budist, a taoist, or all those that worship NO god.

and I think it was Bev that made the best point. If the 10cs were displayed along side the Book of the Dead or the Eddas, as a historical collection, it would be a different thing all together.

I'm also a spiritual person and actually, was raised in Alabama. I like the poem, but I disagreed all along with Judge Moore posting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom because this is a country that is supposed to separate church and state. As a judge, Judge Moore knows this. It seems obvious to me that by posting the Ten Commandments, Judge Moore was saying "This is what I use to guide my judgements, not the constitution of the US."

I think you are REALLY stretching the intent of the costitution. I can't say 'God' without violating someone's rights? That amounts to 'Prior Restraint'- also unconstitutional.

I fail to see how the display of the 10 commandments can be offensive, if one READS the words. Would Shakespere's words be offensive, Ghandi's, Kennedy's, Darrow's?

Bear in mind this was not a display of the entire set of Mosaic law, just a fundamental stating of one of the foundations of western jurisprudence.

I find it amusing that this display excites such controversy, while the words on the facade of the Supreme Court don't seem to ellicit much comment.

Why does it offend someone with no beliefs to hear that others have beliefs?

I find it amusing that this display excites such controversy, while the words on the facade of the Supreme Court don't seem to ellicit much comment.

Why does it offend someone with no beliefs to hear that others have beliefs?

I think the controversy and upset is over far more than words.

The face of the world has changed so much that people are dying over beliefs, whether they have them or not.

Ths world is full of arguments and concepts yet the minute one tries to align with a philosophy or belief system the roaches come out of the wood work with bludgeons to make us change our minds.

We live in a world of murky uncertainty, made cloudy by those who scream and rant but take no action
We are asked to be honest, keep the commandments and yet when we try to elect a leader we are hard pressed to find one who has not sinned (and lied about it on national TV).A lie about being shot at in a foreign country described as 'a minor blip'?

There was a time when religion, whether one subscribed or not to a particular belief set shone with a stable light (no pun intended). No more. The evangelists wallow in excess and turn the temples into a mockery, selling indulgences again. I read with interest that the Church is making adjustments to the Word which go beyond a more exact translation. Perhaps it IS the end of days and Jesus is stopping off in the Vatican before doing the big reveal.

Yes, I am being sarcastic but it seems to me the deadly sin we all need to look at is the pride and arrogance that suggests to any of us that we can say this is how it should be done.

We are all so busy talking, full of our opinions and our rights.

Perhaps if we started to listen, and think of our responsibilities?

I think you are REALLY stretching the intent of the costitution. I can't say 'God' without violating someone's rights? That amounts to 'Prior Restraint'- also unconstitutional.

I fail to see how the display of the 10 commandments can be offensive, if one READS the words. Would Shakespere's words be offensive, Ghandi's, Kennedy's, Darrow's?

Bear in mind this was not a display of the entire set of Mosaic law, just a fundamental stating of one of the foundations of western jurisprudence.

I find it amusing that this display excites such controversy, while the words on the facade of the Supreme Court don't seem to ellicit much comment.

Why does it offend someone with no beliefs to hear that others have beliefs?