Freedom of religion?

[Drasken]

I never implied the 10 were the entire basis of Western law, but like the Magna Carta it certainly has a historic role. If the satanists can show their monument has the same historic relavence to be placed there let them prove it.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Hahaha but their point, AND mine is that the signifigance of the Ten is miniscule if not speculative. Only 3 of those rules were made law, and they are in no means unique to that document. In fact most of the other commandments are directly contradicted in our laws.
It is like saying Christianity, or ANY religion should be taught in schools because morality is based on such. That is wrong, and correlation does not equal causation.
Just because a few.laws coincide with a few of the commandments in no way makes it historically important to our laws or court system.
Thus it is religious in nature. NOT historical. Find me better citation or proof of the Ten commandments being more than that, and NOT the words of some old religious judge.
Otherwise my opinion and points remain valid arguments in this case. And therefor the validity of their religion and its values etc. On our history is irrelevant.

 

[Tgace]

How much of the Magna Carta or Hammurabi's Code were turned into modern law...that argument is thin. All of those and the 10 are important foundations of what has evolved into modern law. Because the last one is associated with religion....and you don't like it....does not change that.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

Like it or not our laws are based on Christian beliefs. No matter how much you disagree facts are facts. As already said you swear to tell the truth in court on a bible and the terms "so help me god" are used. The President of the United States swears in on bible. The word god is used in the pledge of allegiance, 5 times in the Declaration of independence and the constitution is signed "In the year if our lord". In fact looking at all my military awards they also read Year of our lord.
Pretending its not true won't make it less factual

 

[Drasken]

How much of the Magna Carta or Hammurabi's Code were turned into modern law...that argument is thin. All of those and the 10 are important foundations of what has evolved into modern law. Because the last one is associated with religion....and you don't like it....does not change that.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

On that note, Pagan ethics and practices were the foundation of early monotheism including Judaism. Therefor if you want to be technical about it the codes of ethics passed down in these practices are important as foundations of law as well. Should we go fighting to get these codes of conduct posted up everywhere as well?
The argument here is a weak one in order to post up religious Crap where it doesn't belong. And considering the fact that there is a growing population of people who don't follow the Judeo Christian faiths it isn't surprising that more people are unhappy with this weak excuse to display this all over, showing a clear favoritism to one faith in this country. Yet we STILL hear about this imagined persecution.

The fact still remains that it is religious in nature. And it is the CHRISTIANS fighting to keep it, not historians. Kinda funny, if it were so dang historically important don't you think that would be different?

 

[Tgace]

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Commandments-their-Influence-American/dp/0965355721

An in-depth study of how each of the Ten Commandments had a historical impact on the development of laws in America and affected the legal philosophy of our government framers. For example, the 4th Commandment-"Keep Holy the Sabbath": PENNSYLVANIA FRAME OF GOVERNMENT, April 25, 1682, Article XXII: "That as often as any day of the month...shall fall upon the first day of the week, commonly called the Lord's Day, the business appointed for that day shall be deferred till the next day, unless in the case of emergency." U.S. CONSTITUTION, 1787, Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2 "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law" Read how the Ten Commandments affected the views of America's leaders: "The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion" - John Adams, Nov. 4, 1816, letter to Thomas Jefferson. "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days." - Harry S Truman, Feb. 15, 1950, Attorney General's Conference. See references to the Ten Commandments in court cases: "The Ten Commandments have had an immeasurable effect on Anglo-American legal development" - U.S. District Court, Crockett v. Sorenson , W.D. Va. (1983) "It is equally undeniable ...that the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World." - U.S. Supreme Court, Stone v. Graham, (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) An ideal book for students, teachers, journalists, writers and those interested in researching the foundations of American law!

Don't confuse historical significance with your modern interpretation of "church and state". Religion..the 10.. all had significant influence on the current state of our legal system. That's why the 10 commandments (Held by Moses) are on Federal Courthouses...and not Crucifixes.

View attachment $scotus4.jpg

 

[crushing]

How much of the Magna Carta or Hammurabi's Code were turned into modern law...that argument is thin. All of those and the 10 are important foundations of what has evolved into modern law. Because the last one is associated with religion....and you don't like it....does not change that.

The non-supernatural parts of the Decalogue were adopted from an already existing social contract. It's not just coincidence that pretty much the same codified laws were developed independently around the world without regard to religious inheritance/indoctrination of the lawmakers. The relevance of the Ten Commandments as a 'historical law document' has been quite overstated by Christian apologists and proselytizers‎.

 

[granfire]

unfortunately, a lot of the folks who lobby for the 10 commandments being on display in public venues have a hard time spelling history, much less having vague knowledge of any, especially past the turbulences in the South.
Their motivation is religiously based, as the behavior of one very prominent figure in this movement demonstrated with clarity:
A judge (stating in his verdicts when he thought the people in front of him violated god's law) was ordered to amend his ways of displaying the plaques he had in his courtroom, by including it in the historic context of constitution, Magna Carta etc, or remove it.
He refused.

So there is your test case.
You want freedom of, for and from religion, the Satanist will have to get their memorial.

So if this offends somebody, maybe it is time to rethink this commandment issue.
While it is a benign form, it still is a means of bullying to insist it being displayed in this fashion. Just because the majority does not see it as such does not mean it isn't.
Especially in a courthouse, when the perpetrators also use their powers to push their agenda.
Not cool!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm just curious which Satanic branch this is. The article writer seemed to think there was only 1. 2 main lines are the Satanists who are basically inverted Christians, who worship the Christian devil, and the Leveyist Satanists, who are basically New Ageist with carnival theatrics mixed in. Personally I don't think there should be any religion mixed in government, but if they allow 1 monument, they need to allow others as well, as long as they comply with community standards (ie no 20 ft dancing neon phallus's)

 

[ballen0351]

My only issue with this whole case is the group wanting to put up the Satan monument is from NY not OK. So why does an NY group want to put up anything in OK. If it was a OK group wanting to put up a monument in OK they would have a leg to stand on but a group from NY only looking to cause trouble in a state they have never even been too I'd tell them to pack sand.

 

[granfire]

My only issue with this whole case is the group wanting to put up the Satan monument is from NY not OK. So why does an NY group want to put up anything in OK. If it was a OK group wanting to put up a monument in OK they would have a leg to stand on but a group from NY only looking to cause trouble in a state they have never even been too I'd tell them to pack sand.

The same reason why groups from Utah influence California politics.

Middle Finger in the eye.

 

[oftheherd1]

On that note, Pagan ethics and practices were the foundation of early monotheism including Judaism. Therefor if you want to be technical about it the codes of ethics passed down in these practices are important as foundations of law as well. Should we go fighting to get these codes of conduct posted up everywhere as well?
The argument here is a weak one in order to post up religious Crap where it doesn't belong. And considering the fact that there is a growing population of people who don't follow the Judeo Christian faiths it isn't surprising that more people are unhappy with this weak excuse to display this all over, showing a clear favoritism to one faith in this country. Yet we STILL hear about this imagined persecution.

The fact still remains that it is religious in nature. And it is the CHRISTIANS fighting to keep it, not historians. Kinda funny, if it were so dang historically important don't you think that would be different?

My Blble tells me that God, specifically Jesus, created all creation. No Christian will believe your statement about pagan religions being the foundation for belief in the God of the Bible. In fact, a Christian would consider that blasphemous. Neither do I know of any ancient document that would purport to show that.

Just for discussion, consider that the statements above about a constitutional right to freedom of religion are wrong. We don't so much have a freedom of religion, as much as we have a freedom from religion. The constitution only prohibits the federal government from establishing a federal religion. Several of the individual states did in fact have state religions. So does a state have a right to display the Ten Commandments on religious grounds? The SCOTUS seems to think not, but will allow it for other reasons. It would seem then, that to pass the SCOTUS test, those other religions would have to show some connection besides religion.

 

[oftheherd1]

My only issue with this whole case is the group wanting to put up the Satan monument is from NY not OK. So why does an NY group want to put up anything in OK. If it was a OK group wanting to put up a monument in OK they would have a leg to stand on but a group from NY only looking to cause trouble in a state they have never even been too I'd tell them to pack sand.

A good point. They don't seem to have standing.

 

[ballen0351]

The same reason why groups from Utah influence California politics.

Middle Finger in the eye.

Changing a law that effect millions is a far cry from putting a monument up in a state 1000s of miles away that the people in that state don't want and the people putting it up would never see it. Its totally about causing trouble in a highly Christian State. If they really want a monument put it up in NY where they live

 

[granfire]

Changing a law that effect millions is a far cry from putting a monument up in a state 1000s of miles away that the people in that state don't want and the people putting it up would never see it. Its totally about causing trouble in a highly Christian State. If they really want a monument put it up in NY where they live

where, on time's square?

you are missing the point though.

They do it because they can.

The monument was allowed, opening the gates for other frivolous crap like this.
The flying Spaghetti Monster is next.

Personally, I find it - unlike the Utah based influence in Cali - amusing.
It's dishing out some of the same medicine from a different angle. Time to pull up a lawn chair, fill the cooler with beverages and light up that BBQ. It promises to be a nice floor show.

 

[Drasken]

I'm just curious which Satanic branch this is. The article writer seemed to think there was only 1. 2 main lines are the Satanists who are basically inverted Christians, who worship the Christian devil, and the Leveyist Satanists, who are basically New Ageist with carnival theatrics mixed in. Personally I don't think there should be any religion mixed in government, but if they allow 1 monument, they need to allow others as well, as long as they comply with community standards (ie no 20 ft dancing neon phallus's)

Actually the 3rd and lesser known sect has gained in the Satanist power structure. Worshiping pre Christian concepts reguarded as "Satan" and very theistic and occult in nature. But you have a point. I wonder which sect we're talking about. Considering I believe they said New York Temple and not California, I doubt it is Leveyan.

 

[ballen0351]

where, on time's square?

you are missing the point though.

They do it because they can.

The monument was allowed, opening the gates for other frivolous crap like this.
The flying Spaghetti Monster is next.

Personally, I find it - unlike the Utah based influence in Cali - amusing.
It's dishing out some of the same medicine from a different angle. Time to pull up a lawn chair, fill the cooler with beverages and light up that BBQ. It promises to be a nice floor show.

Its not dishing out anything. They are being a holes just to be a holes. They have nothing to do with OK so why do they care. If the state of OK is good with it then so be if you don't like it don't visit them. Its more of the I don't like what you believe so change or else. You think its a great show and pull up lawn chairs I think they are punks that should stay in NY

 

[Drasken]

Changing a law that effect millions is a far cry from putting a monument up in a state 1000s of miles away that the people in that state don't want and the people putting it up would never see it. Its totally about causing trouble in a highly Christian State. If they really want a monument put it up in NY where they live

The temple in New York represents Satanists from their central power structure much like the Vatican represents Catholic interests worldwide. Just because the Temple is in New York means nothing. And before you say anything about number of Satanists, there are more of them than you think I would wager.

 

[ballen0351]

The temple in New York represents Satanists from their central power structure much like the Vatican represents Catholic interests worldwide. Just because the Temple is in New York means nothing. And before you say anything about number of Satanists, there are more of them than you think I would wager.

How many in the state of OK? If there are so many why are the ones living in OK not leading the way to get this done?

 

[oftheherd1]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/0...monument-on-steps-oklahoma/?intcmp=latestnews

What do you guys think?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Kind of curious about your motive for this post? Were you trying to bait some people? I see you have offered no opinion of your own.

What do you think?

 

[granfire]

Its not dishing out anything. They are being a holes just to be a holes. They have nothing to do with OK so why do they care. If the state of OK is good with it then so be if you don't like it don't visit them. Its more of the I don't like what you believe so change or else. You think its a great show and pull up lawn chairs I think they are punks that should stay in NY

Not disagreeing with you on the a-hole thing.
It's a moon fest. A-hole against A-hole. Someone ought to break out a belt and make them pull up their pants.