The new version of swaring under oath:

"Do you sware to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God, Buddah, Muhammad, Satan, and Jehova? If you believe in reincarnation, do you sware that if you lie under oath you will agree to return in your next life as a fly that lives off eating shit? If you are atheist, do you promise to tell the truth, and agree to show the judge your hands and take off your shoes to ensure no fingers or toes are crossed. If you believe or worship in the following religions noted below, do you sware to the higher power not to lie:
Witchcraft
Wicca
Witta
Pagan
Neo-pagan
Ceremonial Magick
Kemetic
Tameran
Discordian
Erisian
Chaos Magician
Gardnerian
Alexandrian
Reclaiming
Dianic
Norse
Asatru
Odinism
Shamanism
Hindu
Huna
Mama Chi
“Native” or Indiginous
Druid
Earth Religion
The Craft
Old Religion
Voodoo
Vodun
Santeria
Yoruba
Golden Dawn
Circle
Yoruba
Bruja
Cunandero
Silva Mind Control
Recon
Reconstructionist
Masonic Lodge
Oddfellows Lodge
Church of All Worlds
Laveyan Satanism
Crowley
If you're religion or secular belief was not noted, do you sware to not only tell the truth, but not sue this Judge for infringement of your religious practices?
You know, to hell with all that. There is afterall a 'Separation of Church and State.' Why don't you get on the stand and say whatever the fuck you want to without consequence. No need to bring a higher power into all this. Lie if you want, make up stories, do or say whatever makes you happy. Afterall, the 10 Commandments were removed from this building. Nobody gives a shit what you say. Nobody gives a damn to know that our laws and this country was built on Christianity. Thou Shall now steal, murder, commit adultery, give false testimony, covet, take no day holy, take the Lord's name in vain, and make yourself an idol. The prisoner may now me released, as our laws in general infringe on other people's religious practices. And by the way, will someone PLEASE change the Pledge of Allegiance, so that every religion is included. Better yet, can we ditch the pledge all together. While we're at it, let's dig up our forefathers graves and shit on their faces for creating such a horrible country that upsets and offends so many people."

Good one. Answer me this. Why do the ten commandments monument in Alabama have to be removed, and yet there is a statue at the Supreme Court building in DC that has Moses holding the Ten Commandments?

Because most of us wanted it gone. Was the monument put there by one of the judges under the cloak of night?

Does anyone here really believe that someone swearing to God while taking the oath actually means anything at all?

What, as soon as you swear under God you suddenly are unable to lie? If this was true every person who is sworn in and says "I didn't do it" should be immediately exonerated of all charges.

Come on guys, the words have no meaning 99% of the time to the liars, they commit crimes so what difference does swearing in make?

It's really a moot point as far as trials go, someones always lying regardless of their religious beliefs.

Because the lawyers are going about the wrong way. They are arguing that the ten commandents are the religous basis for our laws. They should forget the religious aspects and argue its historical basis for the very same reason there is a statue of Moses holding those very same ten commandents at the Supreme Court. Maybe then they can keep their statue...

If a person was devout in their religion, then supposedly their morals should prevent them from lying. But the purpose of the oath is to declare in front of the court that the testimony you are providing is the truth. If it is found that you are lying, then you may be held accountable for perjury and may face charges. The words may not have any meaning to liars, but it does have some purpose.

I saw a recent CNN poll where it said 75% wanted it to remain.

I've seen CNN polls that said 80% of Americans believe Elvis works in a Sam's Club in Sheboygan . . .

Polls mean dick.

I thought he was working at a Kmart in Hoboken...............

If I have to testify in court and they try and get me to swear on anything but my own word they're going to have to stop for discussion...

Brent

Don;t worry Brent, I recently served on a jury. In the state of Maryland you swear that you are telling the truth but there is no bible or mention of God or anything.

Paraphrasing "Do you swear the testimony that you are about to give is the truth...."

Supposedly because the Supreme Court thing is part of a larger historical tableau with other religions or events also featured.

Then why have a bible in the room and the words "so help me god" in the oath?

Wouldn't "Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" accomplish the same thing?

There is no statue of Moses holding the Commandments in the Supreme Court. There ARE, however, four references to it, but every one of them is historically based, not christian based.

1. Eastern Entrance frieze has two male figures, "The Majesty of Law" and "The Power of Government." Between them is a SINGLE tablet, not two, with the roman numerals 1 through 10 (but no words).

2. South Courtroom frieze - Moses is among many historic lawgivers (Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, St. Louis, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon). The tablets he holds are blank. He is not depicted any more prominently than the others.

3. The Oak courtroom doors. On the inside of the door, on the bottom, there is a carving of two tablets, again with only roman numerals...no words.

4. East Pediment (rear of the building), there is a depiction of Moses, Confucious and Solon, representing three great societies. It is a historical depiction. (Note also that the Tortoise and the Hare are depicted in this sculpture).

Get rid of the 10 commandments in Alabama. Seperation of church and state. Crystal clear! They can push their religon on people in different ways.

I'll ask again, what religion are they pushing? What religion is being established?

And it spelled swearing.

Christianity. I was going to say something about the spelling of swearing, but thought that if it went that long with no one saying anything...that it wasn't worth it.

"We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."--James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution

Interesting link about that quote:

Separation of Church and State

Note this paragraph: "The only problem with the above is, no such quote has ever been found among any of James Madison's writings. None of the biographers of Madison, past or present have ever run across such a quote, and most if not all would love to know where this false quote originated. Apparently, David Barton did not check the work of the secondary sources he quotes."

I find it kind of odd that if you google that phrase, NONE of the pages that push it as true show WHERE it came from - what's the original source? What writing of Madison's did it come from? (As in Jefferson's letter about the wall of separation of church and state).

Nicely done Mobycat!

:rolleyes:

What people fail to understand is what the meaning of "Separation of Church and State" actually is, or the history of it.
Thomas Jefferson put a stop to religious persecution, by Act of Congress, with his document: "Statutes for Religious Freedom in Virginia", which abolished the Anglican state-controlled church, replacing it with Freedom of Religion, that is freedom of different Christian churches, to worship in their own way, without being persecuted and punished.

This is the real meaning of the First Amendment Clause of our United States Constitution, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." James Madison had this clause put into the Constitution, in order that the government would never again force citizens to ATTEND a state-controlled church, such as the Anglican Church in Virginia had been. This is the true meaning of the phrase: "Separation of the Church from interference by the State." Now, all the different Christian denominations could worship God in their own way, and preach the Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ wherever they wished.

Separation of Church and State does NOT mean that there will be no religious references in State facilities, organizations, buildings, etc. It simply means that the State can not force it's citizens to practice a particular religion.

So, if you're FOR separation of Church and State, then great, I hope you are. But if you're against having any form of religious statements in those State Facilities, then you're against Freedom of Speech, which is entirely different then the Separation of Church and State issue.

What branch of christianity? Why not Judaism? What branch of Judaism?

Agreed

I am actually excercising my right of freedom of speech by being against having any form of religious statments in state facilities. I am not loooking to start a big religion debate, but why not have writings from Mohammed, Zeus, or David Koresh? All religons are based on faith and not real facts. If I have faith that I believe that a bananna is a god and I worship it, should I be able to have a bannana peal or a Chiquita sticker in a court house? Law is based on fact, not that we belive you are guilty so you are automaticaly guilty. The 10 commandments have no place in the court. This is a trial by peers, not a trial by god! The definition of one of the 10 commandments, keep the sabath, was changed by the church...thus breaking the 10 commandments.

Sunday is not the sabath

So then someone can have a monument put in a government facility that is reflective of satanism and you won't have a problem with it?

Which brings up an interesting question...

Which version of the Ten Commandments did he have?

The Catholic? The Protestant? The Hebrew? They are all different wordings. (Catholic #1 is a combo of Protestant 1&2, Protestant 10 is a combo of Catholic 9&10.)

If he decides he wants to read those commandments from the bible, will he use the King James? Catholics don't use that bible, they use the New American.

Here's a funny little quote:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820)."

Note the word between. That means both ways. And that's James Madison.

Madison didn't even think there should be chaplains in congress, nor even in the military:

Madison\'s Detached Memoranda

We should all just make a different version of the bible to satisfy our beliefs. That is what we have now! Oh yeah, and I had a question. Where does it say in the bible that priests should rape and sexually assault little boys and girls? We are not just talking about isolated incidents people. How can you deny that there is a huge problem with the catholic church (the most members in the world)? Maybe they should put the 10 commandments back in the court house for all of the rape and sexual assault trials.

Of all the people that are so opposed to the 10 Commandments, I wonder how many of them have begun their Christmas shopping yet.

Everybody celebrates Christmas. It is just as much a commercial holiday as a religous one. There are plenty of people that just celebrate the getting together of families. I used to be a strong Catholic. I was even confirmed in the Catholic church. I never really asked myself why I believed what I did believe. Then I realized, that there isn't any cold hard proof for believeing what I did. It was all based on faith. The Church is very powerful and influential. Since the beginning of it's existance it has murdered people who opposed it and twisted things to suit them. They are rich beyond belief. Most Roman Catholics are usually baptised at 1 to 5 months old, not nearly old enough to make an decesion. They use scare tactics such as, if you don't do this you are going to hell ect.. Everything is switched around to fit the situation. If someone almost dies and is saved at the last moment, then it is God who saved them. If someone dies like at 4 years old of some freak thing like murder, then it was just their time to go. What the hell is that? No one ever gives God credit for all of the bad things that happen. The Twin Towers were attacked in the name of God. You don't hear anyone blaming God for that do you? I am actually trying to keep an open mind, gathering as much information as I can. I will make a decesion as to wether I believe in God or not. I have tried praying, talking to priests ect...and they cannot answer my questions. I am just looking for answers, and discussing these topics with people is probably how I will solve my dilema.

Of course it's all based on faith. Some historical stuff of the bible is true, while other parts are faith based. i.e. A man living back then is generally accepted to have been Jesus, but nobody has proven he really walked on water.

Quote:

The Twin Towers were attacked in the name of God. You don't hear anyone blaming God for that do you?

No, because God gave you the ability to choose right from wrong. What you do with it is not his fault.

Quote:

I am actually trying to keep an open mind, gathering as much information as I can. I will make a decesion as to wether I believe in God or not. I have tried praying, talking to priests ect...and they cannot answer my questions. I am just looking for answers, and discussing these topics with people is probably how I will solve my dilema.

If you are looking for concrete answers, you will be looking forever. That's what faith is. I'm not aware of any religion that claims to have all the answers.

That's a funny one... My wife just reminded me that christians have hijacked a pagan holiday with their christmas... 21 dec was (and is still celebrated) by many peoples (mostly in nordic countries) because this is the winter solstice and the days start to get longer... Getting more sun in the winter is a good reason to celebrate...

I'm really not here trying to push my religion on anyone. I accept everyone for who they are, and seriously try to not judge anyone, despite my difference of beliefs. My point of beginning this thread was to get people thinking that Separation of Church and State does not mean obstaining from God or religion in State offices. When the President is sworn to office, he swares on the bible in front of the entire country, when we are called to testify under oath, we sware to God we'll tell the truth, on every American legal tender, "In God We Trust" is written on it, and almost every single government office is closed for Christmas and many for Good Friday. For the most part, most everyone would agree with a majority of the 10 Commandments, regardless of their religious beliefs. Who does not believe we should not murder, or steal, or commit adultry for instance. Our laws are based on those beliefs. What part of the 10 Commandments do most people not agree with? Misusing the name of the Lord? Honoring your father and mother (any of you have children)? Give false testimony? Making yourself an idol? Coveting your neighbors house, or wife, or belongings?
What is really horrible about those? What is it about those that offend so many (or so few) people? Do you have any idea what our country would be like if those were not in place? But you know, I understand in a way. I was atheist for a great deal of my life. If I was asked 5 years ago if the 10 Commandments should be removed, I would have agreed, believe it or not. I too celebrated Christmas for the sake of family togetherness, and wore no reference to the Christ part of it. Now thinking though, a person celebrating Christmas, who does not believe in Jesus Christ, is like a Communist celebrating July 4th.
But the thing is, we try too dang hard not to offend anyone. We seem to try so hard to especially not offend the 2% of the population, that we end up offending the vast majority. A few people are upset with the Pledge of Allegiance, so to satisfy those few people, we remove it from school, some people don't get hired because of their race, so affirmative action is implemented, which specifically is designed to be used as a quota, which causes more descrimination (but because it descriminates against a larger population, it's okay).

Anyway, I've gotta say, although this thread fired up a lot of people, I'm glad to see how we can oppose something, but be civil at the same time to one another. I may not agree with you regarding the subject in general, but everyone seems to have the ability to think for themselves, and I do admire that quality of others, and respect you all because of it.
Thanks for the debate, and I'll see you in the other forums!

Chato

Which is a personal preference of the incoming president. It is not part of the oath of office, as defined in the Constitution. He doesn't have to use a bible, and he doesn't have to swear - he can affirm (the are not the same thing). Does anyone honestly think that Lieberman, if he were to win, would use a bible? You're kidding yourself if you think he would.

Quote:

when we are called to testify under oath, we sware to God we'll tell the truth

Depends on where you are, apparently - someone said Maryland does not require that.

Quote:

on every American legal tender, "In God We Trust" is written on it

Which came about in the 1950s, not when the country was being started.

Quote:

and almost every single government office is closed for Christmas and many for Good Friday.

What government office closes on Good Friday? No federal offices do.

Quote:

For the most part, most everyone would agree with a majority of the 10 Commandments, regardless of their religious beliefs. Who does not believe we should not murder, or steal, or commit adultry for instance. Our laws are based on those beliefs. What part of the 10 Commandments do most people not agree with? Misusing the name of the Lord? Honoring your father and mother (any of you have children)? Give false testimony? Making yourself an idol? Coveting your neighbors house, or wife, or belongings?
What is really horrible about those? What is it about those that offend so many (or so few) people? Do you have any idea what our country would be like if those were not in place?

Commandments 1-3 have absolutely NO place in government. Commandment 4 is a personal issue. Commandments 5-8 affect other's lives. They are the ONLY ones you could argue any laws are based on. Commandments 9-10 could never be enacted into law in a capitalist society. (Going by the Catholic version)

Nothing is wrong with them, but what about people who do not believe these commandments - that is, people who are of another religion? Non-Christians, non-Jews. What about Hindus? Buddhists? Would anyone have a problem if some words from Buddhism were put in the court?

Quote:

Now thinking though, a person celebrating Christmas, who does not believe in Jesus Christ, is like a Communist celebrating July 4th.

That doesn't jibe. July 4th isn't a holiday for capitalism and democracy. It's a holiday commemorating Independence. Now, if you had said, "is like a Klan member celebrating MLK day"...

Quote:

But the thing is, we try too dang hard not to offend anyone. We seem to try so hard to especially not offend the 2% of the population, that we end up offending the vast majority. A few people are upset with the Pledge of Allegiance, so to satisfy those few people, we remove it from school, some people don't get hired because of their race, so affirmative action is implemented, which specifically is designed to be used as a quota, which causes more descrimination (but because it descriminates against a larger population, it's okay).

It's not a matter of people being offended. It's a matter of how the government and religion should not interact. Would the 10 Commandments in there offend me? Nope. But I know it shouldn't be in there, because it gives the implicit notion that Christianity is held higher in this country than other religions, which goes completely against one of the major reasons this country was founded.

I asked this before, and nobody answered...

If you owned a business, and your manager put a Wiccan monument in the lobby, what would you do? Even a crucifix on the wall - it may not be what everyone in the office believes, but it sure makes it look like it does.

How? When was the last time you had something pushed upon you without your consent?
It doesn't happen. Quit running into the closet full of fear. It isn't the dark ages anymore.

Hey Moby, the same applies about all your Jefferson quotes. They can't be found either. Did you ever read what it says in the Jefferson Memorial?

Wrong, thanks for playing. What isn't real and factual about the Bible? Except for the big faith things, almost everything has been proven. You better wake up and do some research instead of running your mouth on ideas brought on out of your lack of understanding.
The Ten Commandments have no place in court. The dumbest comment yet. Our laws were written with the Ten Commandments as the backbone. That's like saying you can swim in the pool, but don't touch the water.

The quote I use 99% of the time of Jefferson's is about the "wall of separation" and it very much has been documented.

How do you enforce #1-4 and 9 and 10? What laws refer to them or even have something remotely in common? Only when it affects someone else has there been anything close.

(Again, for simplification, I'm going by the Catholic version)

Bush's Faith-based Inititative.

So, how did Moses part the Red Sea? How did they fit all of the animals on the ark? How did Jesus feed all of those people with one piece of bread and a fish (could be innacurate)? The bible is a story book. Another thing they need to make their mind up is when the world is going to end and when Jesus is going to rise again! It keeps gettting moved back because it doesn't happen when the bible predicts it will.

Actually, I seem to recall seeing how they came up with a theory as to how that happened. It wasn't in the grand style of Heston. Rather, it was the result of drought. The sea got so low that it actually exposed the bottom. Granted, it's only a theory, and who knows how severe a drought could be to cause that...

Explain to me just how many animals you think were needed and why?

Where does the Bible, (not a story book), mention the exact date the world will end?

I can't explain the Red Sea miracle. No one can. We are not God. His ways are not ours.

Moby, lets not be so liberal and literal in our thinking. OK, not every commandment out of the Ten gets used in our laws. Some of them do however.

Bush's faith based initiative is for every religion under the sun. Any religious school doing good work for the kids and community will be subsidized. This isn't just for Christians. And it isn't being pushed upon you.

But isn't that picking and choosing? I mean, if we are going to base it on them, why not all of them?

(by the way...isn't "liberal and literal" kind of contradictory? It's one or the other, isn't it? (I know...you meant liberal in the political sense )

Quote:

Bush's faith based initiative is for every religion under the sun. Any religious school doing good work for the kids and community will be subsidized. This isn't just for Christians. And it isn't being pushed upon you.

I'd like to see a Wiccan group get some grants...but I know that won't happen.

It's being pushed on me, because some of my tax dollars go toward it.

(Yes, using the same argument, some of your tax dollars used to go to pro-choice groups.)

Yeah, but my tax dollars are going to welfare which I don't believe in. My tax dollars are going to the arts which I don't believe in supporting. My tax dollars are going to provide pre-natal care for illegal aliens which I don't believe in. You liberals are good at providing lots of special interests groups with money, but when it comes to wholesome family values or morally correct issues, you all shy away and hide behind some trumped up law that doesn't exist like seperartion of church and state.

Your right, the bible does not mention an exact date. It does very vaguely mention certain things happening that will lead up to the date, and people interpret them to say when the world is going to end. Things like a country in the east will fight with a country east of them blah blah blah. Things that could be true on any given day. I am just sick of religous people using things only in positive situations, and when something negative happens or something that they can't explain happens, we hear the good ole God works in mysterious ways speech. If a kid dies when he is 5 years old because he is murdered or something, people just say that God had a plan for that child. What the hell is that? The kid was murdered and never got the chance to live a full life! This could go on forever Off2cjb. You have some very good and valid points, but there is no hard proof that there is a God. There is tons of scientific proof that evolution was real. I am a person that needs to see something to believe in it, that is just the way I am. People have been debating this subject since the begining of time, we are not going to solve anything on the Xterra Owners Club! It was fun and informative debating this subject with you, I enjoy seeing others peoples prospectives. That is what will help me to make my decesion on what I do believe someday.

Well I am not here to make you believe. The Christian religion is founded on faith. Believing in what you can't see, smell, touch, etc... If you don't have it, then you will not be able to be a believer.

And lets not get back on the evolution thing, because there is NOT tons of scientific evidence supporting this belief. People believe in this theory just like us Christians believe in our religion.

Right, but those aren't religion/god issues. They aren't prohibited by the constitution and the bill of rights.

Quote:

My tax dollars are going to provide pre-natal care for illegal aliens which I don't believe in.

How 'bout those Cubans that get something like $9000 and free health care from the government? Conservatives aren't going to get rid of that.

Quote:

when it comes to wholesome family values or morally correct issues

Ah...thought police, eh?

Quote:

you all shy away and hide behind some trumped up law that doesn't exist like seperartion of church and state.

There is no mention of the words "separation of church and state" in the constitution or the bill of rights...I will give you that. But there is also not one mention of the words "God" or "Christianity". And Jefferson and Madison both believed in the separation of church and state (mutually, not just one way), and both said that's what the constitution and bill of rights provided. If anyone has the authority to say what the constitution and bill of rights meant, it's these guys.

Please tell me, show me, where religion/God is prohibited in the Constitution. By the way, isn't the Bill of Rights the first ten admendments of the Constitution?

What Cubans are you referring too? Most get sent directly back to Cuba without passing go or collecting $9,000. Where does this information arise from?

Yes, someone has to be the thought police as a collective society. I am glad to say it is part of the Republican platform thank God.

The Federal Government does have a special program for Cubans. Anyone that makes it to the shores of the U.S. can stay. They automatically get resident alien status under a special refugee program and yes.... the feds give them money. There is a program set up just for them. I believe the whole thing is wrong and should be done away with.

Regarding your comments about the "thought police".... the liberal left has sole domain on this issue.

What are you talking about by saying this is part of the Republican platform?

The Republicans are the ones who should be known as the thought police since they more or less stand for what is morally correct along with strong sense of family oriented value systems.

Not to be associated with the Liberals whose thought police would have us all granting abortions to 16yr olds without parental notification. Or taking all the money made in this free market place and giving it to the self-made poor. Or the ones that feel an owl deserves its home vice men supporting families having jobs. Or the ones that feel committing adultery in a public office is OK and at the same time, reinventing a definition of sex to appease themselves. Or the ones that take away gun rights to satisfy mom's grieving over their killed youngins.

I remember many years back on PBS someone had a documentary about a theory of how the red sea was parted. The area that Moses and the Jews were thought to have crossed at is actually very shallow. (easily verified by a geology study) Compbined with very high winds and a drought, portions of the sea actually move away for a length large enough (and shallow enough) for people and gear to move across it.

The scientists tested their theory in a lab using models and wind tunnels. It worked for the demonstrations and they had enough real scientific base to think that it was possible to actually have the red sea parted.

Its possible that God sent the winds and the drought and opened up the sea just enough for the jews and Moses to cross. Then shutting it down just in time to stop the pursuing army.

Basically we don't know.

No political party should be known as any type of "thought police". They should make their values and intentions known and let the people elect those they choose to represent them.

The problem today is an out of control federal judiciary and basically an out of control federal government. The Constitution is being abused like never before to do nothing but advance liberal, secular humanist and aetheistic agendas. It is up to Congress to reign the judiciary in. That is where Republicans can be helpful because Democrats support all these things.

Republicans can also help by reigning in Congress itself by putting a stop to the increasing amount of socialism creeping into American's lives. The more socialism introduced into any government, the lazier, selfish and more uncaring the populace becomes. Why should they care when "the state" will do everything for them. Europe is a perfect example of this mentality.

Will the Republicans step up to the plate? I seriously doubt that anymore. It is time for a new national party that is anti-socialist and interprets the Constitution literally. No more "living, breathing document" bullshit.

The people themselves are also a huge part of the problem. People get the type of government they deserve. Our population is becoming increasingly dumber and unaware of issues and concepts that affect their lives. There is a tendency towards laziness and lack of individual responsibility. The state has started to encourage this in an ever increasing grab for power. The worse the people... the bigger the government. The bigger the government... the worse the people. A vicious cycle.

There is a bright spot in the future however. Increasing numbers of young people are rejecting the liberalism of their parents. There are many more conservative high school and college kids than you would think. Things can change....

That was actually well put. Good job. I give you an "A" and a smile face for today's efforts.

When discussing the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, consider the second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, which states, in part, “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

If our Creator does not give us these unalienable rights, then who does? “Well the government does” is the answer from the absolute “separation of church and state” crowd.

Well if the government gives them to us – then they can take those rights away. Those rights are specifically granted to us by a higher power so man cannot take them away. They are unalienable, look it up… incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred. You cannot surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and cannot under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.

Governments are there to secure these rights, NOT to grant or create them.

Creator does not necessarily mean the Christian God. Jefferson was, in fact, a deist. Deists DO believe in a creator. Some believe that everything was created, and then the "creator" no longer does anything. That is, we are left to our own devices.

From Deism.com: "Deism is, as stated above, based on nature and reason, not "revelation." All the other religions make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi. All one needs in Deism is their own common sense and the creation to contemplate."

I never said religion or God was prohibited. What IS prohibited is any intertwining of them with government. Both ways.

Yes, the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments, which technically, would make them part of the constitution.

Do you think it will ever happen though? Aside from different judges, the only way to reign them in is through amendments, and a lot of the stuff you'd like to have - it would be next to impossible (if not completely) to get the required number of states to ratify it.

This is not in response to any post directly. After reading this entire thread which has many of the SAME issues discussed in other threads here in The Asbestos Lined Room," I have become am sick and tired of every topic going in circles.

There are many appearances of phrases, scriptures, symbols and dipictions of persons all related to Judeo/Christian religions in many government buildings, documents and procedures.

Does each case deal with religious instances and inferences to Judeo/Christian values? YES

Are they also created, stated and displayed based on respect to their natural history? YES

Do they hurt anybody? NO

Do they offend anybody? YES, A VERY SMALL SELECT PERCENTAGE OF THIS COUNTRY. Although, bordering unconstitutional or factually unconstitutional, laws ARE and SHOULD NOT be made to make offended people FEEL better.

Let's focus on issues that really need attention in this country, not if a statue or phrase needs to be removed to make someone feel better.

God help this country, because we are destroying our once admirable society from within.

With our being beholden to NATO , the U.N , the WMF , the WTO , the increasing federalization of our government and it's dispersment of funds , the lack of power of the states , the strength of the I.R.S , corporate fraud , free spending lobyists , out of controll illegal immigration , the slow destruction of our natural resources , rediculously low test scores especially in math and science , violence in schools , contunously high murder rates , and half of all the countries children living in single parent homes I don't really think that the descision to have the ten commandments in a courtroom or the word "god" ommitted from an oath will be a major contributer to the demise of our empire.

Let's keep things in perspective.

>>shaking head<<

It's not about someone being offended. It's about what the government can and cannot do.

Much like the whole sodomy ordeal in Texas - that wasn't about gay rights, it was about privacy. The majority opinion said as much: "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

The problem is, people make it out to what it's not - in the case of the Alabama court, people are making it out that the people who say it should be removed are anti-christian. Obviously, some people are, but that's not what the issue is, and never has been. Nobody is saying you can't engage in Christian acts - you can do them wherever you want - even in a public building. You just can't have any government agency organizing it or endorsing it.

States used to be able to do what they want - the First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government. However, that changed with the 14th Amendment: “no state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law... .” It's not something new either, as far back as 1947 the court ruled on establishment as it pertains to states (Everson v. Board of Education). Part of that decision: "The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion... . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" (See, there's that quote of Jefferson's again!)

The fact is, it doesn't matter about offending - everyone has the right to have equal participation in the government - and if the Ten Commandments were to stay, that knocks some people out - Atheists, Polytheists (sp?), etc.

The fact is, it doesn't matter about offending - everyone has the right to have equal participation in the government - and if the Ten Commandments were to stay, that knocks some people out - Atheists, Polytheists (sp?), etc

Forget the quotes, Moby, why is that these people are vastly weak minded leftist? Do you honestly think that having the Ten Commandments in that building excludes people, or gives Christians special rights under the law? No it doesn't.
Weak minded people, particularly from the left, will always find something to take away from the anything decent in society. That sculpting doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't help anyone. Get over it and live your (lefties) life the best you can.
I am so sick and tired of lefties trying to get into my life and tell me how to live. Geez, I hate every thing they stand for.
This darn thing has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with lefties with nothing better to do in their lives since they all just walked out of the abortion clinic and have no more worries so they look around and see what they can scrounge up next.
I like you Moby. I respect you. But, take all your lefty friends and move to that hippie nation just north of us.

I saw that same documentary and it was interesting. If that is true (and it is possible), then it still leaves us with how god sent winds and drought.

Not true. Congress can pass a bill. Technically they could pass a bill about anything. It would only be a temporary measure until...you guessed it... some federal judge struck it down. A Constitutional Amendment would solve this problem. This Constitutional Amendment must clarify Article III Section I of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary.

You are wrong. I do not think it would be impossible to get it passed. It just takes courage and hard work on the part of some of our representatives. The majority of the American population is not happy with the federal judiciary. Once this became a big issue, many congressman would be scrambling to prove why they should or should not support it and that could be large issues in their re-election campaigns. As I said... it just takes courage on the part of those that introduce it (It certainly won't be my congressman. He is a coward). There would certainly be enough states to pass it. The problem lies in Congress.

It is up to the Legislature to create laws. There seems to have been some sort of perversion of the American government over the last 50 years where the judiciary makes decisions and these decisions become defacto law. This is wrong and our government was never set up to operate in this manner. The federal judiciary is out of control and no longer operates within their constitutional parameters. The Constitution has been thrown out the window by the federal judiciary and we are basically living in a new form of government. It has to end or revolution is right around the corner.

You like Jefferson.... Isn't a little revolution every 20 years or so a good thing? Our system is cracking. Americans are not Europeans. There is only so much abuse they will take. Maybe a big revolution is in order.

By the way... Jefferson is also one of the most abused of our founding fathers by the liberals of today.

Very, very true. I'll give you one guess which group of sycophant ideologues is doing the destruction.

Like I said, it doesn't offend me being there. But going by the law, it shouldn't be there.

Quote:

I am so sick and tired of lefties trying to get into my life and tell me how to live.

But how is removing something in a courthouse rotunda getting into your life? Has any of the court decisions regarding church/state affected you personally? You still have your faith, as strong as ever, right? It hasn't diminished it.

Quote:

Geez, I hate every thing they stand for.

There are things that both sides do that I could do without...for me it just happens that I have less inclination to agree with conservatives.

Quote:

This darn thing has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with lefties with nothing better to do in their lives since they all just walked out of the abortion clinic and have no more worries so they look around and see what they can scrounge up next.

I have never been closer than 20 feet to a clinic (and only that close because there's one in Falls Church right up against the road). Would I ever go into one? I don't know. I don't plan on getting into the situation where I need to worry about it. IF I ended up in that situation, I can't say what I would do.

[/qb][/quote]I like you Moby. I respect you. But, take all your lefty friends and move to that hippie nation just north of us.[/QB][/QUOTE]

All left, head north.

Nah....too damn cold in the winter.

A perfect example of an out of control federal judiciary.

Privacy is not addressed in the Constitution. Hence the 10th Amendment. This is an issue whose sole domain is the states. No federal court has any business addressing this issue and the case should never have reached a federal bench.

You are so damn wrong Moby. The Alabama 10 commandments issue is an Alabama problem. Not a federal problem. No federal court had any business addressing this issue.

Another fine example of our out of control federal judiciary.

Liberals love this shit when the federal bench makes up interpretations of the constitution to please them.

Madman, you are wrong on both counts - the Alabama case and the Texas case.

14th Amendment makes the First Amendment apply to states as well (until the 14th, it didn't).

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

And yes, the Court has ruled on that before. As early as the 1920s.

No you are wrong. I am well aware of what the 14th Amendment states. I have posted it here numerous times (when quoting an amendment...post the whole section).

It is the radical interpretation by the federal judiciary that is the problem. It only takes a new ruling to strike down previous interpretations of federal rulings.

The 14th Amendment is the most abused of all Amendments. The equal protection clause is the most abused of any text of the constitution. It has been used as a license for extreme liberalism. The interpretations are wrong and extremely broad. They totally blow the 10th Amendment out of the water. When a federal court takes a case similar to previous cases or rulings... that previous ruling is always in jeopardy.

The equal protection clause can also be interpreted to administer an opposite ruling. This is why a new Constitutional Amendment to reign in judicial tryanny is required.

But you would agree with them considering they suit your idealogy. If these rulings had gone the other way... you would be arguing against them.

Article III Section I must be redefined if this country is to ever move forward.... or survive.

Well, considering the 14th Amendment was determined to make the 1st Amendment applicable to the states in it's entirety since 1937 (Palko v. Connecticut), I'd say it sure has taken a long time for it to cause the downfall of the US.

Ironically, it was the Republicans who pushed this Amendment through.

But I must say...interesting journey that Amendment took to becoming law.

You do have a funny way of looking at American Constitutional law when it suits your agenda.

All Federal rulings.... including Supreme Court rulings are by nature not permanent. They are easily and frequently overruled by either higher or subsequent courts.

The first amendment was and is applicable to the states by virtue of the fact that it IS in the Constitution...Hence the 10th Amendment. All Amendments are applicable to the states. Remember one thing... The 14th Amendment was ratified under duress in 1868. Possibly because many at the time knew it would be abused because of it's loose wording.

The point of this conversation is a matter of the interpreation of the U.S. Constitution. How broadly and in what manner are we going to continue to allow the federal judiciary to make these interpretations? I believe we need a Constitutional Amendment to update Article III Section I because there is too many social values being brought to bear in federal cases. They are not adhering to and interpreting the Constitution which is their jobs and what they have sworn to do. This was also evident in another bad Supreme Court Case... Dredd Scott. I am sure even you would agree that was a bad decision. That decision was mostly based on social values at the time and "non-offense" of a certain portion of the population at the time. It was a bullshit interpretation and the court threw the Constitution out the window on that one.

Palko v. Connecticut was an issue based on a criminal case. You picked that case in a 14th Amendment argument?.... Not a great example of what we are talking about here because this case entered provisions guaranteed by the 5th Amendment. Not a good case for this discussion.

My concern is the total blowing off of the 10th Amendment by the federal courts to suit their needs and to placate modern social mores. (e.g. Lawrence vs Texas as one of many examples)

Anything not addressed in the Constitution is the domain of the states. This has been trampled upon relentlessly for many years. Mostly to advance liberalism.

Maybe another successionist movement might be in order to wake up the federal government. The states have no rights left anymore other than that of taxation because of an out of control federal judiciary and that is wrong.

What's also wrong is that most people don't even realize this....

Funny, that's what I call people that buy so heavily into religion in the first place...

Brent

Thanks Brent,

Ya beat me to it!

M

Jesse is that you??
[img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:dwtML8AvLDYC:www.metrocouncil.org/mnsmartgrowth[/img]

Kewl, I do think the same of you non-believers. The ones who can't accept anything as truth unless they can see it or hear it on CNN.

So, on the one hand, you resent the Liberals for their ability to tell you how to run your life.

But on the other hand, you applaud the Republicans for what you consider to be an appropriate attempt to direct the morals of the country -- telling other Americans how to run their lives.

You don't dislike a government entity directing the way Americans act, behave, think . . . you just want your people doing it . . .

You're a progressive little zealot, aintcha?

Well, it's both. Some lobby, group or individual has to bring up the issue with the court and judge to begin with. Thereafter a judge makes a decision. That's what I meant.

I think he should remove it and put a big pentagram and goats head or some other satanic symbol just to stir things up some more.

One atheist' perspective.

The biggest problem I have with all of this is that I dont believe these lobbyist groups have righteous motives. I think it is an out and out attack on religion in general. I can't believe that they would really care whether or not the Ten Commandments are on the steps, or if "Under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. Or even worse, I can't say Merry Christmas to a student here at my school because I might offend a non-christian student. I have to say "Happy Holidays" instead.

Can we all agree that these instances are all part of the same subject, even loosely? And if we can all agree, hasn't it gone just a bit too far?

I understand that we do not want religion to be making policy in this country. But I still believe that certain moral tenets in our society that may have been spawned by religion are under attack simply because their roots can be traced back to religion of some kind.

I see the state of morality in this country going downhill. I see MTV glorifying the "thug" mentality in its videos and attitudes of the performers they push on us. Breaking the law seems to be in style these days. I see our Presidents and Sports Stars commiting adultry and using drugs and committing violent crimes and no one seems to be outraged. I see groups like the ACLU defending NAMBLA under free speech. I see judges calling the Boy Scouts a religious group and taking away thier place to gather.

I see politicians on both sides of the fence buckling under pressure from special interest groups. I believe many of these men and women got into politics with righteous motives, but saw that if they didnt play the game, they would never get anything accomplished. The irony of it is that they never get anything accomplished because they are playing the game.

I see the constitution being bastardized by judges that have agendas. There is no such thing as a neutral judge anymore.

What are they trying to accomplish? A morality free society? What good moral cant be traced in some way to religion? Before you all go nuts, there are plenty of bad things that have been done in the name of religion, but they were done by people in the name of religion, not religion itself.

We talk about humanism, and secular morality. Simple ideas like character. Character to me is made up of honesty, responsibilty, trustworthyness, and other intangible things of that nature. I don't need to have fear of burning in hell to be a person of character. I dont steal, murder, lie, cheat, or any other number of things out of fear of eternal damnnation. I do it because it's the right thing to do. Religion needs to hang these things over our heads in an effort to coerce us into being well-behaved.I don't need to be coerced. But if this(religion) is what it takes to keep some people in line, than so be it. OUr society is getting to the point where I dont think people care anymore about doing what is right, they only care about doing what they want.

Sorry for the longness and sometimes ramblyness of my rant. Just things that I think about.

I don't want either telling me how to live my life. But, since they both are going too, I prefer the Republicans and their way of thinking. They represent me. The Democrats represent a group of people who think they represent me. Oh yeah, please explain "progressive".

I betcha nothing would be done about it...

Speaking from a Christian point of view; you hit the nail on the head. I couldn't agree more. No, I don't want religion of any kind making federal policy, but I do want some of the Christian value system placed in it.

MBFlyerfan has read my mind. I could not have said it better.

MBflyerfan,
That was very well put. Since you are an atheist your opinion probably carries more weight than just another Christian spouting off. Kudos!

MBflyerfan for SENATE...

Well said...

Good job MBFlyerfan. Personally I think that values weather the be christian, buddhist, hinu, in their purest sense are about how to behave in society as a whole.

Praise from Ceasar.

Just remember what happened to Ceasar

Which one?

Well, first they spelled his fucking name right . . .

Then they named the Caesar salad after him . . .

???

LOL

Lemme throw in my $.02...

First off, using Jefferson to defend the current interpretation of what is referred to as the 'separation of church and state' is a mistake. The "Wall of seperation" letter was written to calm the fears of one group, an intimate conversation, if you will, and not neccessarily intended for longevity.

What many people don't know is Jefferson was fundamentally against the bill of rights. Yep, The fellow who is seen as the archetect of the separation of church and state would have rather it not be part of the constitution at all. That's certainly not to say he didn't agree with many of the ideals, just that they need not be part of our constitution.

Another interesting thing is Jefferson while saying there would be a wall of separtation between church and state, meaning in the particular document that the federal government would not interfere in matters of religion; did not believe that that also applied to the individual states. Congress did not include the states, and at that time we still had a tenth ammendment. So certainly, Alabama would have the right to display a religious monument, despite the first ammendment, which explicitly applies to congress.

What has changed in constitutional law between then and now is the current interpretation of the commerce clause. Which fundamentally voids the tenth ammendment (which gives the states all rights and privlidges not explicitly granted the the federal goverment), by stating the federal goverment has juristiction in any matter that can effect trade between states (read as: absolutely everything)

To wrap this up... invoking Jefferson seems to be a flawwed arguement for either side, as not only was it a peice of legislation he disapproved of, but the Danbury letter is also rather ambiguous in it's nature. The determination of whether it was a ploy to garner support or an outright declaration rests solely in your opinion of the matter.

Very interesting Coop. I shall have to further study this some more. Be careful though, I don't think Moby will take this very lightly.

You sir, are correct. Jefferson very much DID support the Bill of Rights.

Jefferson on a Bill of Rights

More proof Jefferson DID want the Bill of Rights

Told you. He has some kind of Jefferson fetish.

I regard Jefferson as possibly the greatest American there has ever been. Sorry you don't feel that way. :p

He's up there. Along with Franklin, Washington, Lincoln, Hale, and Tyson.

Tyson...definite Top 3 material there... anyone who can eat people's children....