Judge suspended over Ten Commandments

[Stinger]

As I understand it BR most of the people who would be his constituants are backing him up...

[bigross86]

Meaning this whole thing could be a ploy for a higher position? It seems to have cost alot of money. The statue cost something like $30,000, right?

[Leader]

Originally posted by Blackclaw
But the courthouse is public property therefore it belongs to all citizens of the country and not all citizens of the country are Christian. If the US truly does not sanction any one faith, than if it allows a piece of public property to display religious monuments than all faiths should have an equal chance of getting their faith represented.

Although the country does not sanction any faith, it is based on one faith: Christianity.

In truth, I cynically think this whole thing is a political ploy by the judge. He’ll be running for a public office soon.

He already ran for office. They elect judges in Alabama. He was elected as the "Ten Commandments Judge." It was the peoples will that this monument was put up.

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by Leader
Although the country does not sanction any faith, it is based on one faith: Christianity.

Forgive me, but I fail to see the difference.

He already ran for office. They elect judges in Alabama. He was elected as the "Ten Commandments Judge."

Maybe he wants to run for governor. I can't help but doubt his sincerity. I think he enjoys the attention of being a public martyr.

It was the peoples will that this monument was put up.

No it was his will. No one else got any say in it. He had workers sneak the thing into position in the middle of the night. There's a reason he chose a 5300 pound monument. He didn't want the thing to be easily removed. The whole thing smacks of hypocrisy and that always annoys me.

Frankly I think the whole think is a nonissue dressed up to get attention. I don't particularly care if the courthouse has the ten commandments posted there or not, but I don't like the idea of one faith getting to push their beliefs on others. Even if the majority supposrts a thing, there is a duty of a truly democratic state to protect the minority. I don't see any real harm in a 5300 pound rock sitting in front of the courthouse. But the melodrama of the whole thing is a bit much for me. We'll see how things fare when someone drops a 2 ton statue of Cthulhu on the State Legislature's lawn.

[Leader]

Originally posted by Blackclaw
Forgive me, but I fail to see the difference.

The difference is that the government does not establish a national religion. The government simply puts forward American values like do not kill people.

Maybe he wants to run for governor. I cannot help but doubt his sincerity. I think he enjoys the attention of being a public martyr.

"Public crusader"

No it was his will.

No it was the people's will: CNN poll 77% of Americans oppose the federal court ruling to remove the statue.

The whole thing smacks of hypocrisy and that always annoys me.

An example? I see no hypocrisy in standing up for ones beliefs.

I don't like the idea of one faith getting to push their beliefs on others.

If you do not want American values pushed on you then there are many other countries out there.

there is a duty of a truly democratic state to protect the minority.

How does this hurt the minority?

We'll see how things fare when someone drops a 2 ton statue of Cthulhu on the State Legislature's lawn.

Ok let's make this clear.
Ten commandments= American values
Statue of Cthulhu= Who the hell knows, but not American values.

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by Leader
The difference is that the government does not establish a national religion. The government simply puts forward American values like do not kill people.

And that's a fine value to have, but the problem is that this judge is wrapping that value in his own personal relgious context. American values may have grown from Judo-Christian philosophy, but if we expect all Americans to embrace them we have to take into account that not all Americans are Christian. Equal and just law cannot be based upon one part of a society's values. Law should be based upon the protection of people and property. The enforcement of morality is not the task of the government. That's the task of community and religious leaders.

"Public crusader"

I think the term "Public nusiance" applies better but that's a matter of opinion.

No it was the people's will: CNN poll 77% of Americans oppose the federal court ruling to remove the statue.

No choice was ever given before the fact though. And even if it is supported by a majority of Americans, I must warn about the danger that comes from the tyranny of the majority. Little things like this may seem fine as long as it is your faith that is being promoted. But you may feel a bit more uncomfortable in a country where it is Islam that is promoted. Such things can foster a feeling of disunity and disenchantment. The US is better than that.

An example? I see no hypocrisy in standing up for ones beliefs.

I see it in smuggling a religious artifact onto public grounds in the middle of the night. This judge knew it violated the Constitution. He knew that it violated the law that he as a judge was sworn to uphold. If his "faith" prevents him from carrying out his duties to uphold the law of the United States he should not have taken the oath to be a judge.

If you do not want American values pushed on you then there are many other countries out there.

I see American values as embracing the idea that you are free to be who you are.

Ok let's make this clear.
Ten commandments= American values

I disagree. At one point slavery equaled American values. There are even rules governing the treatment of slaves in the Old Testament. American values are not a static thing. They grow, change and evolve. For me American values is the freedom to do what I want so long as I don't harm anyone else. For you, perhaps they are something else, but you are free to believe as you choose.

Statue of Cthulhu= Who the hell knows, but not American values.

Cthulhu values are that souls descending into madness are tasty snacks. Ok, so probably not an American value...

Thanks for this debate. I've been on the wakipaki forums too long. I would have been declared a zionist Indian American imperialist over there by now.

[Praxus]

Although the country does not sanction any faith, it is based on one faith: Christianity.

Try again, most of our founding fathers were Deist not Christians per say. They believed in a God but beleived God could not change reality because he abonded it.

They worshiped Reason the soul means of attaining knowledge...

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson

This nation was founded upon reason and individual rights and not upon Christianity.

Ok let's make this clear.
Ten commandments= American values

Read this...

The first commandment is: "I am the Lord thy God."

As first, it is the fundamental. It's point is the assertion that the individual is not an independent being with a right to live his own life but the vassal of an invisible Lord. It says, in effect, "I own you; you must obey me."

Could America be based on this? Is such a servile idea even consistent with what America represents: the land of the free, independent, sovereign individual who exists for his own sake? The question is rhetorical.

The second commandment is an elaboration of the above, with material about not serving any other god and not worshipping "graven images" (idols). The Hebrew and Protestant versions threaten heretics with reprisals against their descendants--inherited sin-- "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation . . ."

This primitive conception of law and morality flatly contradicts American values. Inherited guilt is an impossible and degrading concept. How can you be guilty for something you didn't do? In philosophic terms, it represents the doctrine of determinism, the idea that your choices count for nothing, that factors beyond your control govern your "destiny." This is the denial of free will and therefore of self- responsibility.

The nation of the self-made man cannot be squared with the ugly notion that you are to be punished for the "sin" of your great-grandfather.

The numbering differs among the various versions, but the next two or three commandments proscribe taking the Lord's name "in vain" and spending a special day, the Sabbath, in propitiating Him.

In sum, the first set of commandments order you to bow, fawn, grovel and obey. This is impossible to reconcile with the American concept of a self-reliant, self-owning individual.

The middle commandment, "Honor thy father and mother," is manifestly unjust. Justice demands that you honor those who deserve honor, who have earned it by their choices and actions. Your particular father and mother may or may not deserve your honor--that is for you to judge on the basis of how they have treated you and of a rational evaluation of their moral character.

To demand that Stalin's daughter honor Stalin is not only obscene, but also demonstrates the demand for mindlessness implicit in the first set of commandments. You are commanded not to think or judge, but to jettison your reason and simply obey.

The second set of commandments are unobjectionable but are common to virtually every organized society--the commandments against murder, theft, perjury and the like. But what *is* objectionable is the notion that there is no rational, earthly basis for refraining from criminal behavior, that it is only the not-to-be-questioned decree of a supernatural Punisher that makes acts like theft and murder wrong.

The basic philosophy of the Ten Commandments is the polar opposite of the philosophy underlying the American ideal of a free society. Freedom requires:

-- a metaphysics of the natural, not the supernatural; of free will, not determinism; of the primary reality of the individual, not the tribe or the family;

-- an epistemology of individual thought, applying strict logic, based on individual perception of reality, not obedience and dogma;

-- an ethics of rational self-interest, to achieve chosen values, for the purpose of individual happiness on this earth, not fearful, dutiful appeasement of "a jealous God" who issues "commandments."

there is a duty of a truly democratic state to protect the minority.

A truely democratic state is the worst possible type of Government. Where the majority have unlimited power. We are a Constitutional Republic were we have the constitution which describe our rights and the Governments soul job is to protect thoose rights(Wether they do or not is another story).

However we are becoming more and more democrtatic which is hurting this country.

As Aristotal said some 2300 years ago, "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."

[Ziska]

Hmm. AS far as I know, the Courthouse is a state institution, not a federal one, so the argument would be whether the Constitution of Alabama forbids the statue, not whether the US Constitution does.

And anyway, I cannot see the breach of freedom of religion. People are still free to worship who they choose. It's not like Moore is going to start jailing muslims for being heretics, or anything like that.

The monument is simply a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of the states inhabitants see the 10 commandements as the basis of law. That's it.

No-one is seeking to outlaw other religions, and no-one is claiming that non-christians will be unable to get a fair trial. (or are they?)

Anyway, is abortion legal in Alabama? Is homosexuality? If so, I don't know what they are complaining about, because religion obviously isn't coming into the legislators minds...

[Praxus]

Hmm. AS far as I know, the Courthouse is a state institution, not a federal one, so the argument would be whether the Constitution of Alabama forbids the statue, not whether the US Constitution does.

And anyway, I cannot see the breach of freedom of religion. People are still free to worship who they choose. It's not like Moore is going to start jailing muslims for being heretics, or anything like that.

The monument is simply a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of the states inhabitants see the 10 commandements as the basis of law. That's it.

No-one is seeking to outlaw other religions, and no-one is claiming that non-christians will be unable to get a fair trial. (or are they?)

Anyway, is abortion legal in Alabama? Is homosexuality? If so, I don't know what they are complaining about, because religion obviously isn't coming into the legislators minds...

Well guess what the 10 Commandments aren't even close to the founding of law in this country. For christ sake the Code of Hamurabi is closer then the 10 Commandments because the first 5 Commandments are ordering obedience to God which is clearly not in American law.

[Ziska]

Well guess what the 10 Commandments aren't even close to the founding of law in this country. For christ sake the Code of Hamurabi is closer then the 10 Commandments because the first 5 Commandments are ordering obedience to God which is clearly not in American law.

In your opinion, at least. However, you would be in the minority. Most people in Alabama believe that God's law is higher than mans law. Whether or not you agree is immaterial.

[Praxus]

In your opinion, at least. However, you would be in the minority. Most people in Alabama believe that God's law is higher than mans law. Whether or not you agree is immaterial.

It is not an opinion it is a fact. If they believe God's law is the supreme law is irrelivent. American law is closer to the code of hamurabi(which it isn't even close too) then it is to the 10 Commandments. They are acting as if the 10 commandments are the basis for American law which it is clearly not.

And anyway, I cannot see the breach of freedom of religion. People are still free to worship who they choose. It's not like Moore is going to start jailing muslims for being heretics, or anything like that.

The monument is simply a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of the states inhabitants see the 10 commandements as the basis of law. That's it.

It isn't a matter of a violation of rights. The fact is that the US Constitution the supreme law of the land is not based on the 10 Commandments. The founding fathers wanted us to be governed by Equal Rights(life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of ones own happiness) and Reason and not by the threat of punishment by a God.

[Ziska]

Going by that argument, the founding fathers also wanted us to own slaves, and for the franchise to only cover white men of property.

Last time I checked, slavery was illegal and men and women of any race and financial state could vote.

And what rights are being violated? You don't believe in God, so what do you care if Christians think you will be punished for your sins?

Is the statue forcing you to be Christian?

[Praxus]

Going by that argument, the founding fathers also wanted us to own slaves, and for the franchise to only cover white men of property.

Last time I checked, slavery was illegal and men and women of any race and financial state could vote.

And what rights are being violated? You don't believe in God, so what do you care if Christians think you will be punished for your sins?

Is the statue forcing you to be Christian?

What are you talking about, how can a rational person spin "being Governed by Equal Rights" into supporting slavery?

If all people have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of ones own happiness there can be no slavery.

Like I said it is not violating my rights(or did you not choose to read that?). My point is that it is not the basis of American law in fact it is extremly far off to the point were you can't even spin it so it has no place in the Court House.

[Ziska]

I have no idea how someone spins 'being governed by equal rights' into slavery, but the vast majority of the signatories were slaveowners, as were most presidents up until the civil war.

Apparently the founding fathers were happy with the 'inherent rights of man' only extending to white males.

I agree with you, in that the Code of Hammarubi bears a closer resemblence to US law than the 10 Commandements. It doesn't matter.

Power is given by God. The civil law in Communist China is based on the laws of God. The law on totalitarian Rome at thie time of the apostles was based on the laws of God.

Whether or not the state recopgnises, say, adultery as a crime is immaterial. It is still a crime against the higher law of God.

I guess my main point is that who really gives a toss about the Constitution. It can be changed, and has been in the past. It has a lot of room for latitude. Unlike the 10 Commandements, it can/should be changed on the whim of the people.

[Praxus]

We should be Governed by the equal rights of man. These rights should be layed out in a constitution. Which they are.

The Founding Fathers didn't want slavery to prosper but they did own slaves because they made a lot of money from it. They treated them well but it is still extremly immoral and it contridicts what they say.

The soul job of Government should be to protect our rights by any means nessecary. The Constitution can be changed by the artitrary will of the majority, equal rights can not be changed.