| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"simon sez" |
| Date: |
27 Jun 2005 02:47:41 PM |
| Object: |
Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
http://www.wgtndailynews.com/articles/2005/06/24/ap/headlines/d8b04h280.txt
Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struggled in a pair of 5-4 rulings
Monday to define how much blending of church and state is
constitutionally permissible, allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed outside the Texas state capitol but not inside Kentucky
courthouses.
In its first rulings on the issue in a quarter-century, the high court
said that displays of the Ten Commandments on government property are
not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to
determine whether it amounts to a governmental promotion of religion,
the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.
In effect, the court said it was taking the position that issues of Ten
Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a
case-by-case basis.
In that ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a
6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the
Texas capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote.
Justice Antonin Scalia released a stinging dissent in the courthouse
case, declaring, "What distinguishes the rule of law from the
dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely
indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in
consistently applied principle."
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 08:20:08 PM |
|
|
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Tell me: how could the First, Second, Third and Fourth Commandments make
sense from any secular point of view?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 03:42:02 PM |
|
|
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Erm only if you're a moron?
1-4 deal exclusively with worshipping a god - do you understand how that
isn't secular?
5,7 and 10 are none of the courts business which leaves 6,8 and 9 which a
really just common sense.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 04:19:04 PM |
|
|
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
From a secular point of view, that's a meaningless statement.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
28 Jun 2005 08:37:44 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
From a secular point of view, that's a meaningless statement.
Likewise, the requirement to rest on the seventh day because it is holy
and to not worship idols.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful
to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in
disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is
impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that
mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and
prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the
commission of every other crime." - Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 05:58:51 PM |
|
|
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Which is why only 2 of the 10 are laws.
http://www.wgtndailynews.com/articles/2005/06/24/ap/headlines/d8b04h280.txt
Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struggled in a pair of 5-4 rulings
Monday to define how much blending of church and state is
constitutionally permissible, allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed outside the Texas state capitol but not inside Kentucky
courthouses.
In its first rulings on the issue in a quarter-century, the high court
said that displays of the Ten Commandments on government property are
not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to
determine whether it amounts to a governmental promotion of religion,
the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.
In effect, the court said it was taking the position that issues of Ten
Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a
case-by-case basis.
In that ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a
6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the
Texas capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote.
Justice Antonin Scalia released a stinging dissent in the courthouse
case, declaring, "What distinguishes the rule of law from the
dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely
indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in
consistently applied principle."
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 06:17:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Which is why only 2 of the 10 are laws.
To be fair, 3, and arguably even 4 or 5: Murder, theft and perjury are
illegal everywhere (thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness).
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States (although such
laws are rarely, if ever enforced), and some States (including my own
New York, alas!) still have archaic "Blue Laws" on the books (which
generally *are* enforced) regulating how or if certain businesses may
operate on the Sabbath.
This is neither a criticism of the first three prohibitions, nor an
advocacy of the rest of the Decalogue being legislated.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 09:49:06 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Which is why only 2 of the 10 are laws.
To be fair, 3, and arguably even 4 or 5: Murder, theft and perjury are
illegal everywhere (thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness).
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States (although such
laws are rarely, if ever enforced), and some States (including my own
New York, alas!) still have archaic "Blue Laws" on the books (which
generally *are* enforced) regulating how or if certain businesses may
operate on the Sabbath.
This is neither a criticism of the first three prohibitions, nor an
advocacy of the rest of the Decalogue being legislated.
You don't think "I am the lord thy god..." should be a law in the US?
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
28 Jun 2005 04:17:38 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:49:06 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Which is why only 2 of the 10 are laws.
To be fair, 3, and arguably even 4 or 5: Murder, theft and perjury are
illegal everywhere (thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness).
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States (although such
laws are rarely, if ever enforced), and some States (including my own
New York, alas!) still have archaic "Blue Laws" on the books (which
generally *are* enforced) regulating how or if certain businesses may
operate on the Sabbath.
This is neither a criticism of the first three prohibitions, nor an
advocacy of the rest of the Decalogue being legislated.
You don't think "I am the lord thy god..." should be a law in the US?
I'm still mulling over the one about graven images...
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
28 Jun 2005 05:31:50 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ic52c15viulaq8jnf2ojie33tpjultppp3@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:49:06 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Which is why only 2 of the 10 are laws.
To be fair, 3, and arguably even 4 or 5: Murder, theft and perjury are
illegal everywhere (thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness).
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States (although such
laws are rarely, if ever enforced), and some States (including my own
New York, alas!) still have archaic "Blue Laws" on the books (which
generally *are* enforced) regulating how or if certain businesses may
operate on the Sabbath.
This is neither a criticism of the first three prohibitions, nor an
advocacy of the rest of the Decalogue being legislated.
You don't think "I am the lord thy god..." should be a law in the US?
I'm still mulling over the one about graven images...
And what, exactly, is the civil sabbath?
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
28 Jun 2005 02:50:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:31:50 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ic52c15viulaq8jnf2ojie33tpjultppp3@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:49:06 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Which is why only 2 of the 10 are laws.
To be fair, 3, and arguably even 4 or 5: Murder, theft and perjury are
illegal everywhere (thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness).
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States (although such
laws are rarely, if ever enforced), and some States (including my own
New York, alas!) still have archaic "Blue Laws" on the books (which
generally *are* enforced) regulating how or if certain businesses may
operate on the Sabbath.
This is neither a criticism of the first three prohibitions, nor an
advocacy of the rest of the Decalogue being legislated.
You don't think "I am the lord thy god..." should be a law in the US?
I'm still mulling over the one about graven images...
And what, exactly, is the civil sabbath?
Super Bowl Sunday?
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
28 Jun 2005 05:43:55 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:kfa3c1pg88j1rkf4l58b8q8ao2g2f4v3m0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:31:50 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ic52c15viulaq8jnf2ojie33tpjultppp3@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:49:06 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Which is why only 2 of the 10 are laws.
To be fair, 3, and arguably even 4 or 5: Murder, theft and perjury are
illegal everywhere (thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness).
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States (although such
laws are rarely, if ever enforced), and some States (including my own
New York, alas!) still have archaic "Blue Laws" on the books (which
generally *are* enforced) regulating how or if certain businesses may
operate on the Sabbath.
This is neither a criticism of the first three prohibitions, nor an
advocacy of the rest of the Decalogue being legislated.
You don't think "I am the lord thy god..." should be a law in the US?
I'm still mulling over the one about graven images...
And what, exactly, is the civil sabbath?
Super Bowl Sunday?
Excellent answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
28 Jun 2005 09:51:42 PM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Lokwe.34807$J12.22852@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:kfa3c1pg88j1rkf4l58b8q8ao2g2f4v3m0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:31:50 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ic52c15viulaq8jnf2ojie33tpjultppp3@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:49:06 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Which is why only 2 of the 10 are laws.
To be fair, 3, and arguably even 4 or 5: Murder, theft and perjury are
illegal everywhere (thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness).
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States (although such
laws are rarely, if ever enforced), and some States (including my own
New York, alas!) still have archaic "Blue Laws" on the books (which
generally *are* enforced) regulating how or if certain businesses may
operate on the Sabbath.
This is neither a criticism of the first three prohibitions, nor an
advocacy of the rest of the Decalogue being legislated.
You don't think "I am the lord thy god..." should be a law in the US?
I'm still mulling over the one about graven images...
And what, exactly, is the civil sabbath?
Super Bowl Sunday?
Excellent answer.
I was thinking the Friday after Thanksgiving.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
29 Jun 2005 01:54:04 AM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:KcKdnf8EdoS-kV_fRVn-gQ@cablespeedwa.com...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Lokwe.34807$J12.22852@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:kfa3c1pg88j1rkf4l58b8q8ao2g2f4v3m0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:31:50 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ic52c15viulaq8jnf2ojie33tpjultppp3@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:49:06 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Which is why only 2 of the 10 are laws.
To be fair, 3, and arguably even 4 or 5: Murder, theft and perjury
are
illegal everywhere (thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness).
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States (although
such
laws are rarely, if ever enforced), and some States (including my
own
New York, alas!) still have archaic "Blue Laws" on the books (which
generally *are* enforced) regulating how or if certain businesses
may
operate on the Sabbath.
This is neither a criticism of the first three prohibitions, nor an
advocacy of the rest of the Decalogue being legislated.
You don't think "I am the lord thy god..." should be a law in the US?
I'm still mulling over the one about graven images...
And what, exactly, is the civil sabbath?
Super Bowl Sunday?
Excellent answer.
I was thinking the Friday after Thanksgiving.
Okay, that's two. If we're going to have one per week, we need 50 more.
No matter what, that commandment sure as hell ain't civil.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 08:02:39 PM |
|
|
In article <v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com>,
quoththeraven@nevermore.com says...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Which is why only 2 of the 10 are laws.
To be fair, 3, and arguably even 4 or 5: Murder, theft and perjury are
illegal everywhere (thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness).
Well, to be fair it's only illegal when under oath, which explains how
politicians like Bush lie their asses off when unofficially testifying.
Also, I believe the bible adds the codicil, "against thy neighbor" on
this one. To fundies that means you can lie freely about anyone whom
you don't consider your "neighbor". Now as far as stealing goes, it's
fairly universally frowned upon, at least from the one's own group, but
rustling cattle, stealing through conquest, seizing war booty, etc, has
often been seen in a positive light. Stealing from the rich is often
also not seen as such a bad thing and then there are the various systems
of legalized stealing, like that practiced by stock brokerage firms,
that are found the world over. In any event, prohibitions against
stealing and killing predate the bible, so it's hard to argue that we
get our notion of these from the ten commandments.
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States
It's often a civil, rather than a criminal offense which is grounds for
divorce, but if it were truly illegal then repugs would have tried to
prosecute clinton for it.
(although such
laws are rarely, if ever enforced), and some States (including my own
New York, alas!) still have archaic "Blue Laws" on the books (which
generally *are* enforced) regulating how or if certain businesses may
operate on the Sabbath.
Yeah, except the dumbasses don't seem to realize that the sabbath starts
at sundown on Friday and goes to sundown on saturday.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 08:24:46 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2a4f8d7003632698977e@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com>,
quoththeraven@nevermore.com says...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Which is why only 2 of the 10 are laws.
To be fair, 3, and arguably even 4 or 5: Murder, theft and perjury are
illegal everywhere (thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness).
Well, to be fair it's only illegal when under oath, which explains how
politicians like Bush lie their asses off when unofficially testifying.
Also, I believe the bible adds the codicil, "against thy neighbor" on
this one. To fundies that means you can lie freely about anyone whom
you don't consider your "neighbor".
Which ignores the fact that the word "neighbor" as used in the Bible
actually means "other people".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 08:28:11 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1d2a4f8d7003632698977e@news.readfreenews.net>, quibbler wrote:
In article <v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com>,
quoththeraven@nevermore.com says...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States
It's often a civil, rather than a criminal offense which is grounds for
divorce, but if it were truly illegal then repugs would have tried to
prosecute clinton for it.
It is illegal in the military (it was one of the charges against
Chaplain Yee when they started getting desperate to prosecute him with
something they felt they had enough evidence for).
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 09:25:00 PM |
|
|
In article <slrndc19t9.gt3.emma@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
emma@kanpai.stanford.edu says...
In article <MPG.1d2a4f8d7003632698977e@news.readfreenews.net>, quibbler wrote:
In article <v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com>,
quoththeraven@nevermore.com says...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States
It's often a civil, rather than a criminal offense which is grounds for
divorce, but if it were truly illegal then repugs would have tried to
prosecute clinton for it.
It is illegal in the military
So is thinking for yourself ;) Just kiddin' But there are lots of things
the military prohibits, like being gay or insulting a superior officer
which are not illegal outside its authoritarian system.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
28 Jun 2005 05:27:30 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <slrndc19t9.gt3.emma@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
emma@kanpai.stanford.edu says...
In article <MPG.1d2a4f8d7003632698977e@news.readfreenews.net>, quibbler wrote:
In article <v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com>,
quoththeraven@nevermore.com says...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States
It's often a civil, rather than a criminal offense which is grounds for
divorce, but if it were truly illegal then repugs would have tried to
prosecute clinton for it.
It is illegal in the military
So is thinking for yourself ;) Just kiddin' But there are lots of things
the military prohibits, like being gay or insulting a superior officer
which are not illegal outside its authoritarian system.
It is also apparently illegal in several US states. Michigan for example
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
28 Jun 2005 08:12:10 PM |
|
|
In article <d9r8mj$u94$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <slrndc19t9.gt3.emma@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
emma@kanpai.stanford.edu says...
In article <MPG.1d2a4f8d7003632698977e@news.readfreenews.net>, quibbler wrote:
In article <v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com>,
quoththeraven@nevermore.com says...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States
It's often a civil, rather than a criminal offense which is grounds for
divorce, but if it were truly illegal then repugs would have tried to
prosecute clinton for it.
It is illegal in the military
So is thinking for yourself ;) Just kiddin' But there are lots of things
the military prohibits, like being gay or insulting a superior officer
which are not illegal outside its authoritarian system.
It is also apparently illegal in several US states.
You mean thinking for yourself or being gay or insulting a superior
officer or all three :)
--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
29 Jun 2005 04:59:28 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <d9r8mj$u94$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <slrndc19t9.gt3.emma@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
emma@kanpai.stanford.edu says...
In article <MPG.1d2a4f8d7003632698977e@news.readfreenews.net>, quibbler wrote:
In article <v521c1180bdk5phr540pp5jerv6h5u8qbh@4ax.com>,
quoththeraven@nevermore.com says...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:51 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Adultery is still technically illegal in some US States
It's often a civil, rather than a criminal offense which is grounds for
divorce, but if it were truly illegal then repugs would have tried to
prosecute clinton for it.
It is illegal in the military
So is thinking for yourself ;) Just kiddin' But there are lots of things
the military prohibits, like being gay or insulting a superior officer
which are not illegal outside its authoritarian system.
It is also apparently illegal in several US states.
You mean thinking for yourself or being gay or insulting a superior
officer or all three :)
Probably all of them, but I meant adultery
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
29 Jun 2005 10:30:47 AM |
|
|
In article <d9trdp$ea7$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk says...
Probably all of them, but I meant adultery
That reminds of the old joke, where Moses descends from Sinai. He tells
the people "I've got good news and bad news. The good news is that I
talked God down to just ten. The bad news is that adultery is still on
the list."
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Upsilon" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 03:26:00 PM |
|
|
Even from the secular point of view, the First Commandment makes
perfect sense?
How's that, then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 05:59:34 PM |
|
|
"Upsilon" <upsilon.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119903960.720879.249260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Even from the secular point of view, the First Commandment makes
perfect sense?
How's that, then?
He's another "believer" whose only knowledge of the 10 commandments is that
there's 10 of them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
29 Jun 2005 01:38:30 AM |
|
|
In article <1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote:
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Like the one about 'graven images'?
http://www.wgtndailynews.com/articles/2005/06/24/ap/headlines/d8b04h280.txt
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
29 Jun 2005 01:54:28 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-C2C299.23383028062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote:
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Like the one about 'graven images'?
Aren't those cartoonists drawing Bush as a clod?
http://www.wgtndailynews.com/articles/2005/06/24/ap/headlines/d8b04h280.txt
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
30 Jun 2005 12:04:06 AM |
|
|
In article <EArwe.34971$J12.10517@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-C2C299.23383028062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com> wrote:
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Like the one about 'graven images'?
Aren't those cartoonists drawing Bush as a clod?
Heh. Heh. I call that truth in advertising.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 04:36:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1119901661.865649.91760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
simonsez@volcanomail.com says...
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments?
The problem is that they are the illegal, traitorous and
unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
No they don't, nor did you provide an example. The only conceivable
example might be in a museum, but neither the courthouse nor the capital
building really is the appropriate venue, regardless of the
solomonically stupid supreme court compromise.
http://www.wgtndailynews.com/articles/2005/06/24/ap/headlines/d8b04h280.txt
Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struggled in a pair of 5-4 rulings
Monday to define how much blending of church and state is
constitutionally permissible, allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed outside the Texas state capitol but not inside Kentucky
courthouses.
So the display of religious slogans is not promoting religion because we
say it isn't. They must be trying to convince themselves, because they
aren't convincing anyone with a brain.
In its first rulings on the issue in a quarter-century, the high court
said that displays of the Ten Commandments on government property are
not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to
determine whether it amounts to a governmental promotion of religion,
Yes, it must be dunked in pool and if it floats then it's a witch.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 04:53:29 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jun 2005 12:47:41 -0700, "simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com>
wrote:
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
In what way? Please explain in detail how advocating the commandments
not to have any gods before Yahweh, not to make any graven images, or
to keep the Sabbath day holy make perfect sense from a secular
perspective. Furthermore, are you referring to the Catholic,
Protestant, or Jewish version of the Ten Commandments? They aren't the
same thing.
Also, you beg the question as to whether you would you feel the same
about a quote from the Quran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Well?
http://www.wgtndailynews.com/articles/2005/06/24/ap/headlines/d8b04h280.txt
Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struggled in a pair of 5-4 rulings
Monday to define how much blending of church and state is
constitutionally permissible, allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed outside the Texas state capitol but not inside Kentucky
courthouses.
In its first rulings on the issue in a quarter-century, the high court
said that displays of the Ten Commandments on government property are
not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to
determine whether it amounts to a governmental promotion of religion,
the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.
In effect, the court said it was taking the position that issues of Ten
Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a
case-by-case basis.
In that ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a
6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the
Texas capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote.
Justice Antonin Scalia released a stinging dissent in the courthouse
case, declaring, "What distinguishes the rule of law from the
dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely
indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in
consistently applied principle."
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Razor 616" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 08:21:12 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jun 2005 12:47:41 -0700, "simon sez" <simonsez@volcanomail.com>
wrote:
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
So do Satan's 11 rules of the earth. What's your problem with them!?
Huh!?
--
#1295
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 05:37:02 PM |
|
|
simon sez wrote:
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments?
I suspect that most stheists have no problem with the
rules as such; if you want to follow them that's fine
by me. The objection comes when the government endorses
them as religious truth.
Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me? Thou
shalt not take my name in vain? Keep the sabbath
day? I suspect most secularists would argue that
these are not terribly sensible to them.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK |
27 Jun 2005 04:40:24 PM |
|
|
simon sez wrote:
What is the problem liberals and atheists have with the Ten
Commandments? Even from a secular point of view, they make perfect
sense.
http://www.wgtndailynews.com/articles/2005/06/24/ap/headlines/d8b04h280.txt
Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struggled in a pair of 5-4 rulings
Monday to define how much blending of church and state is
constitutionally permissible, allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed outside the Texas state capitol but not inside Kentucky
courthouses.
In its first rulings on the issue in a quarter-century, the high court
said that displays of the Ten Commandments on government property are
not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to
determine whether it amounts to a governmental promotion of religion,
the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.
In effect, the court said it was taking the position that issues of Ten
Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a
case-by-case basis.
In that ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a
6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the
Texas capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote.
Justice Antonin Scalia released a stinging dissent in the courthouse
case, declaring, "What distinguishes the rule of law from the
dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely
indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in
consistently applied principle."
This ruling is a defeat for atheists, as they were hoping for a
complete abolishment of any Ten Commandments display. The Supreme
Court has fear of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and atheists
worldwide would be wise to have same. Picture yourself saying the
following prayer, hand-in-hand with the justices of the Supreme Court:
The Apostles' Creed Prayer:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord;
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,
died, and was buried.
He descended into hell; the third day He arose
again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand
of God, the Father Almighty,
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the Resurrection of the body
and life everlasting. Amen.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
