10 Commandments judge gets the boot!

[loj68]

What this really comes down to is a battle between the people who believe in right and wrong (regardless of your chosen faith) and the people who are moral relativists.

The latter believe that all cultures/views have equal validity which in a perfect/utopian world may be true, is in reality total BS. I'm well acquainted with moral relativism, as I've been attending a university for the last 5 years. It's total horseshit. I feel I'm qualified to make this statement because unlike most of the freshmen that tout the liberal lines their prof's put in their heads, I have lived all over the world and have sampled other cultures. Our culture, while not perfect, is light years ahead of most of the rest of the world in terms of the way we treat each other.

This also relates to the common thought that morality can only exist when backed by a religious doctrine. Religious people commonly think that an atheist like me cannot be moral due to the absence of some religious moral mandate. The couldn't be further from the truth. I actually believe the opposite.....that TRUE objective morality can only exist in the ABSENCE of religion, thus not being clouded by the unbending and unquestionable writings of the ancient men who authored a particular doctrine. For instance, I think it is immoral to stone your child to death when they misbehave.....the bible says this is a valid way to punish a kid.......a true christian cannot disobey nor questions this.....I can however......and I have no doctrine that prevents me from changing my moral position for the better as society or personal experience would dictate.

 

[PhreakV]

(woowoo) for the rule of law!

what is truly amazing to me is that the system actually functioned the way that it should. Read the New York Times editorial in today's paper on the subject. Nine people from the Court of the Judiciary had to vote unanimously to rid the state of AL from a man not holding up his sworn duties... and it worked.

Whether or not he was right or wrong about the monument, he was not upholding his duties to the system, to the state nor to the people that he served...

 

[brennan]

For instance, I think it is immoral to stone your child to death when they misbehave.....the bible says this is a valid way to punish a kid.......

This was takin from the old testament, alot of things in the old testament were abolished when christ came.

 

[KYMP5]

didnt he have to put his hand on a bible to be sworn in

 

[PhreakV]

then you are saying that we should be rid of that too? (i realize your argument)

the fact that there are elements of religous dogma and icons within the system does not imply that it can be used as a platform to promote a particular religion or set of values. its a slippery slope argument...

 

[loj68]

didnt he have to put his hand on a bible to be sworn in

no....he didn't "have" to.....you can choose to "swear and affirm" instead of to god if you choose. Most people aren't aware of that and blindly swear to tell the truth on the big invisible man

 

[laracroft]

I just have a real quick word, then I'm outta this before it turns ugly. There should be seperation. Last time there wasn't a seperation in local government and religion was involved...a few witches got burned at the stake in Mass. NOT COOL!...

 

[KYMP5]

it was just a question, i didnt know so i asked

 

[loj68]

it was just a question, i didnt know so i asked

no prob....I only know this because my wife got jury duty once and called me on her cell phone from the jury box because they were about to ask her to swear on the bible and all that s*** and she doesn't believe in it. So I got on the web real quick and looked it up and gave her the statutes and everthing where you are given the option to "swear and affirm" if you like instead of swearing to god. I don't think most people know this and I wish more did especially since about 14% of our population are non-believers (that's the official number.....I suspect it's probably triple that but people are too weak and afraid to question the religious establishment that still rules our country).

 

[shinzen]

loj, I am glad you stepped in on this and saved me from having to- I got involved in the last one that turned ugly towards the end...

http://www.msprotege.com/vbb225/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38697

 

[therizzzo]

How about this quote by Thomas Jefferson......you may also know him as the guy who WROTE the constitution......so it goes without saying that his clarification of the subject should be valid.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. " - Thomas Jefferson 1802

As stated before, it is NOT in the Constitution. That quote was more than a decade later from TJ.

To those who don't think that the US was founded on Judeo-Christian values and ideals.....You should learn your history better. Like it or not, church is a part of our heritage and history. It's not like this judge was proseletyzing in or around court.

 

[laracroft]

From the rizzo's sig:
LET THE GAY SMILEYS OUT OF THE CLOSET!!!!!!

Christian values....there it is...lmao

 

[Mad Ryan]

I'm what you would call a theist. I'm not into any established sect of Christianity so I tend to form my own opinions. Untill you read the bible in Old Hebrew and Greek you aren't really getting the whole story so it's better not to get too into specifics, at least that's my attitude. Hardcore extremists piss me off regardless of which side they're on, or whether I agree with them or not. I see the ACLU and the rest of the Hardcore lefties as being more detrimental to the US than any external threat. They are taking away our ability to express our opinions and ideas in public under the guise of political correctness. When you get right down to it, America is better off following the path we have for the last 2 centuries rather than the one the facists in the ACLU are trying to force us to follow now.

 

[NRRfrogmanP5]

i was in a court room the other day and right there on the wall it said "IN GOD WE TRUST" wtf is that bull s***.....if u want seperation between church and state take that s*** down...no im not catholic but i still have values and believe in the 10 commandments....i think they should be left alone and where they are..if you take those down...take every item down that deals with god!

 

[pingdum]

...take every item down that deals with god!

(2thumbs)

 

[loj68]

i was in a court room the other day and right there on the wall it said "IN GOD WE TRUST" wtf is that bull s***.....if u want seperation between church and state take that s*** down...no im not catholic but i still have values and believe in the 10 commandments....i think they should be left alone and where they are..if you take those down...take every item down that deals with god!

They should take down "IN GOD WE TRUST".......as I stated before this was not the original motto for our country that the founding fathers created......our original motto was "E pluribus unim" which means "one of many".......it was changed to "IN GOD WE TRUST" much later. This motto change is a disgrace and should never have happened.....it has no place in our country, on our money, and in our courts. If the founding fathers could see that our national motto had been changed to one that specifically refererences god and religion, they'd probably go nuts given the fact that they tried so hard to remove religion from government when they founded this country. It is a shame.

 

[loj68]

As stated before, it is NOT in the Constitution. That quote was more than a decade later from TJ.

but he is expanding on the meaning of the establishment clause.......you cannot discount this as he is the one who wrote it. If he says that it was meant to create a "wall of separation" then it was written to do just that.

To those who don't think that the US was founded on Judeo-Christian values and ideals.....You should learn your history better. Like it or not, church is a part of our heritage and history. It's not like this judge was proseletyzing in or around court.

Just because the founding fathers were christians does NOT mean that they created a Judeo-Christian based society by default. Take a look at the Judeo-Christian based societies of the 1700's and you'll see what a quantum leap our founding doctrines are from them. Not to mention our founding fathers created a completely secular constitution without a single reference to god, jesus, or judeo christianity.

For those who think the U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian values and ideals, all I have to say is show me where it is......because it's not in the constitution.......there are no values or ideals there that can't be found in countless other non-christian societies.

 

[PhreakV]

the idea that the ACLU is a leftist organization is a retarded argument... the ACLU fights for your rights, my rights and the rights of anyone else that is oppressed within the US govt system. the ACLU doesn't pick sides within the political scheme, they are out to protect the rights of the individual.

I realize that they tend to defend issues that seem bent to the left but that might be because the left doesn't tend to use the courts to oppress the right... IMO

 

[Mad Ryan]

the idea that the ACLU is a leftist organization is a retarded argument... the ACLU fights for your rights, my rights and the rights of anyone else that is oppressed within the US govt system. the ACLU doesn't pick sides within the political scheme, they are out to protect the rights of the individual.

I realize that they tend to defend issues that seem bent to the left but that might be because the left doesn't tend to use the courts to oppress the right... IMO

You need to examine their record a bit. This is a group that picks and chooses who it stands up for based upon an idealogical litmus test. If it's a far left group that's not happy about something then the ACLU is happy to step up and provide legal council.

Example 1: NAMBLA: (North American Man/Boy Love Assoc.) This is a group of Pedophiles that were smart enough to start a club so they could get quasi-protected status. I have no idea why the ACLU is going to bat for these sick ***** rights to bugger little boys but they are.

Example 2: Randy Weaver: Mr Weaver owned a bunch of land up in the mountains and decided he was sick of the way things were going so he moved up there with his family and lived off his land. The Reno justice Dept. really had a problem with anyone that did this sort of thing (remember Waco?) so they sent an undercover agent to a nearby tavern to ask Mr weaver to shorten a shotgun barrel at a point he specified. Mr Weaver did so and unwittingly commited a felony. (barrel was too short) However, since it was outright entrapment, it would have never stood up in court.

Some little time later while hunting Mr Weaver's son, a friend, and him came upon several men in the woods in full tactical gear with no markings and automatic weapons who shot the Weavers dog. Mr Weaver's son returned fire fatally wounding one of these men and driving the rest off. (legal on their property under state law)

This brought in the full weight of the federal government and in the end, Weavers Son and wife were killed by FBI snipers. Mr Weaver was seriously injured by sniper fire and and the ACLU was nowhere to be seen. Mr Weaver did nothing wrong, aside from wanting to retreat to land that he owned and have his family live in a manner that they chose that didn't violate any laws.

Look up Ruby Ridge if you're curious about this case.

 

[Mad Ryan]

I realize that they tend to defend issues that seem bent to the left but that might be because the left doesn't tend to use the courts to oppress the right... IMO

Actually, the ACLU has made picking sympathetic judges an art form. They have a list of federal judges around the country that they can file their whacko legislation on behalf of whatever fringe group they are representing.

My opinion about the ACLU is that they're an organization without a purpose. They are running around the country stirring up s*** to keep themselves in business because there really isn't that much call for them anymore. I realize America isn't perfect, but if anything, we've gone too far. Rather than disregard someones race/sex/etc. the ACLU is now forcing us to give considerations to people based on race/sex/etc. which is BS.