Support NeoGAF

[xsarien]

That's an incredibly reaching argument. Inappropriate that it should be at the statehouse - yes, but if the judge is a practicing Judeo-Christian then you're in the same boat. Removing a statue doesn't change the nature of a person's heart. The two are completely unrelated.

There is a massive difference between being a practising anything and wearing your religion on your sleeve (or robe, in this case.) If the judge's faith is being tested so much that he can't go to WORK without seeing symbols of his ideology, then he's a poor judge of not only civil law, but religious doctrine.

 

[Phoenix]

Sure he can "rule", but what he should not do is suggest that he is biased and prefers one religion over another. It's a little thing called professionalism (in addition to um certain other things).

It would be foolhardy to believe that a person cannot present the 'face' of impartiality while giving you the shaft on a sentence. How many times does the plight of black america under the gavel of the court system have to prove this?

 

[olimario]

No one denies that. However, Delay argues agains separation of church and state, not just implications. Do you seriously believe that Delay will stop with a stone tablet if he had the power?

Sure he can "rule", but what he should not do is suggest that he is biased and prefers one religion over another. It's a little thing called professionalism (in addition to um certain other things).

Delay is arguing against the the misconception of the definition of the 1st ammendment. I don't think he wants Christianity having any say in government.

And the act of being a Christian is suggesting that you prefer one religion over the others. You can prefer something and still rule according to another set of laws. This judge has had no problem doing so.

There is a massive difference between being a practising anything and wearing your religion on your sleeve (or robe, in this case.) If the judge's faith is being tested so much that he can't go to WORK without seeing symbols of his ideology, then he's a poor judge of not only civil law, but religious doctrine.

No there's not. Practicing a religion is wearing it on your sleeve. People that I know and what I deal with on a daily basis know that I go to church and know that I'm a christian. I don't wear crosses and street preach, but they still know.

 

[xsarien]

Delay is arguing against the the misconception of the definition of the 1st ammendment. I don't think he wants Christianity having any say in government.

Don't be naive. He's trying to open doors that will lead to religious zealots trying to seize more control than they already have.

And the act of being a Christian is suggesting that you prefer one religion over the others. You can prefer something and still rule according to another set of laws. This judge has had no problem doing so.

If he's putting a statue in front of the courthouse, I'd say that he's a Christian first, and then a judge. He should either consider reversing that, or step down from the bench.

 

[Phoenix]

There is a massive difference between being a practising anything and wearing your religion on your sleeve (or robe, in this case.) If the judge's faith is being tested so much that he can't go to WORK without seeing symbols of his ideology, then he's a poor judge of not only civil law, but religious doctrine.

You talk like the judge is going to be wearing a cross on his back on the way to the stand. My opinion on many things is greatly influenced by my background but you'd never assume that I was biased in most of these things because I do believe that there should be a separation. However my background in religion may make me look at the sentences for crimes more harshly. I might be more willing to 'forgive' a murderer and recommend a sentence that is less than others would think. The point is that you cannot ever know what's really going on in someone's head and what's in their head is a product of their environment. If you grew up with the church telling you that being gay was wrong - that's definitely going to have an impact on how you perceive gay people in your court. If you've had a continuous negative experience with black people based on your background, you're going to have a different mindset about them when you listen to the evidence.

Just because they are judges doesn't mean that they aren't people like everyone else.

 

[xsarien]

You talk like the judge is going to be wearing a cross on his back on the way to the stand.

That is, in fact, what he's doing by placing a religious symbol in front of the courthouse.

 

[Phoenix]

Don't be naive. He's trying to open doors that will lead to religious zealots trying to seize more control than they already have.



If he's putting a statue in front of the courthouse, I'd say that he's a Christian first, and then a judge. He should either consider reversing that, or step down from the bench.

Wow. Wonder what you think of the Supreme Court then because there is a big statue of Moses holding the 10 commandments right there in the room. All you have to do is look up.

 

[olimario]

Don't be naive. He's trying to open doors that will lead to religious zealots trying to seize more control than they already have.



If he's putting a statue in front of the courthouse, I'd say that he's a Christian first, and then a judge. He should either consider reversing that, or step down from the bench.

I'm sure most judges who are Christians would claim they are Christians first and judges next, but they would also claim that they judge fairly and judge according to US law only.

This judge is the same way... his record shows it. How do I know this? Because had he slipped up I and everyone else would demand he lose his job.

 

[Phoenix]

That is, in fact, what he's doing by placing a religious symbol in front of the courthouse.

Who is 'he'? The people juding a trial may have had no relationship to that statue AT ALL.

 

[xsarien]

Wow. Wonder what you think of the Supreme Court then because there is a big statue of Moses holding the 10 commandments right there in the room. All you have to do is look up.

Built by a generation much more God-fearing than we are today, which goes to swearing on Bibles as well. (Another thing that we don't need, people lie under "oath" all the time.)

 

[xsarien]

Who is 'he'? The people juding a trial may have had no relationship to that statue AT ALL.

The judge presiding over the trial, who decides the overall tenor of the case, the bounds within which the prosecution and defense play, and what evidence is allowed into trial.

 

[Phoenix]

Built by a generation much more God-fearing than we are today, which goes to swearing on Bibles as well. (Another thing that we don't need, people lie under "oath" all the time.)

False my friend. The thing you still don't get is that it depends on how its portrayed. The courts have ALWAYS been split on these sorts of statues and the like depending on how they are portrayed. The 10 commandments were 'laws' according to various texts. You can go put a figure of judge dredd in there if you like because the implication is the same.

The Supreme Court frieze, for instance, depicts Moses and the tablets as well as 17 other figures including Hammurabi, Confucius, Napoleon and Chief Justice John Marshall. Because it includes secular figures in a way that doesn't endorse religion, the display would be constitutional, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested in a 1989 ruling.

 

[Phoenix]

The judge presiding over the trial, who decides the overall tenor of the case, the bounds within which the prosecution and defense play, and what evidence is allowed into trial.

That is, in fact, what he's doing by placing a religious symbol in front of the courthouse.

And is likely to have absolutely nothing to do with that statue being out there. There is more than ONE judge in a court for goodness sakes.

 

[videogamer]

It would be foolhardy to believe that a person cannot present the 'face' of impartiality while giving you the shaft on a sentence. How many times does the plight of black america under the gavel of the court system have to prove this?

No I did not say that. If my statement suggested that impartial-looking people were consistently impartial, then sorry. As the face of the government, I want the judge to be impartial and show that he/she is impartial. For instance, as a matter of free speech isn't it fine for a judge to be a Nazi swastika wearing neo-Nazi? Even if he was fair in his rulings, I would not want a representative of the justice system and the government to carry those symbols.

Delay is arguing against the the misconception of the definition of the 1st ammendment. I don't think he wants Christianity having any say in government.

" I don't believe there is a separation of church and state. I think the Constitution is very clear. The only separation is that there will not be a government church."

Sure.

And the act of being a Christian is suggesting that you prefer one religion over the others.

The judge is up there as a government representative, not as an individual.

 

[olimario]

No I did not say that. If my statement suggested that impartial-looking people were consistently impartial, then sorry. As the face of the government, I want the judge to be impartial and show that he/she is impartial. For instance, as a matter of free speech isn't it fine for a judge to be a Nazi swastika wearing neo-Nazi? Even if he was fair in his rulings, I would not want a representative of the justice system and the government to carry those symbols.




Sure.

The judge is up there as a government representative, not as an individual.

Then you're wrong for judging a person based on personal belief. If he rules fairly and has the education and experience to be a judge, then by all means he should be one. He should not be fired based on personal belief but rather on his ruling record.

The judge is up there as a government representative and as such he has ruled according to our government's laws and nothing else. He has done his job and has done nothing wrong.

Tom Delay interprets the 1st ammendment as I do, that the government should not be ruled in any form by a religion.

It's so black and white.

 

[xsarien]

And is likely to have absolutely nothing to do with that statue being out there. There is more than ONE judge in a court for goodness sakes.

Then 1) They should speak up, they know better; 2) Since when does a judge even have the authority to do his own landscaping on government-owned property? If he wants something more appropriate, may I suggest a large, stone carving of a bunch of old guys in wigs, signing that little document known as the Bill of Rights? It's certainly more inclusive to our population. What the HELL is someone who doesn't recognize the 10 Commandments as part of their religion supposed to think going into that courthouse?

False my friend. The thing you still don't get is that it depends on how its portrayed. The courts have ALWAYS been split on these sorts of statues and the like depending on how they are portrayed. The 10 commandments were 'laws' according to various texts. You can go put a figure of judge dredd in there if you like because the implication is the same.

They're laws to religious texts, whose role in 21st Century government is both outmoded and cynical. (At the same time, no less.)

The *point* is that the image of Moses on the frieze wasn't installed by Justice Rehnquist. And seeing as how it's actually *embedded* in the building, removing it is next to impossible.

 

[Phoenix]

No I did not say that. If my statement suggested that impartial-looking people were consistently impartial, then sorry. As the face of the government, I want the judge to be impartial and show that he/she is impartial. For instance, as a matter of free speech isn't it fine for a judge to be a Nazi swastika wearing neo-Nazi? Even if he was fair in his rulings, I would not want a representative of the justice system and the government to carry those symbols.

I think you better fund some AI research because what you're talking about isn't really possible. One can't put their brain on the shelf during a trial and hell its even worse with jury trials.

Sure.

The judge is up there as a government representative, not as an individual.

The problem is that you can't separate the two. The individual is going to come out - they aren't robots. I mean after all we've had people in the courts and high government who were known racists and fairly open about it. Every once in a while they slip up and it becomes news and they are ushered from their positions after severing in it for some 30 YEARS or so.

 

[xsarien]

The problem is that you can't separate the two. The individual is going to come out - they aren't robots. I mean after all we've had people in the courts and high government who were known racists and fairly open about it. Every once in a while they slip up and it becomes news and they are ushered from their positions after severing in it for some 30 YEARS or so.

If the person deciding the fate of peoples' lives can't be reasonable enough to keep obviously VERY deep-seated religious beliefs at home, then they should dust off the resume and find a job where there won't be any obvious conflict.

I have no faith in a judge who may, so openly, decide to mix in a little bit of religion into any bench decision.

 

[Phoenix]

If the person deciding the fate of peoples' lives can't be reasonable enough to keep obviously VERY deep-seated religious beliefs at home, then they should dust off the resume and find a job where there won't be any obvious conflict.

I have no faith in a judge who may, so openly, decide to mix in a little bit of religion into any bench decision.

You overlook the first obvious fact - juries decide the fate of people's lives. Criminal trials use juries unless the accused refuses them. These are regular people just like you and me. We decide guilt and innocence in criminal trials. Once convicted, the judge is used for sentencing (though juries are used in these instances as well in many cases).

 

[Phoenix]

Then 1) They should speak up, they know better; 2) Since when does a judge even have the authority to do his own landscaping on government-owned property? If he wants something more appropriate, may I suggest a large, stone carving of a bunch of old guys in wigs, signing that little document known as the Bill of Rights? It's certainly more inclusive to our population. What the HELL is someone who doesn't recognize the 10 Commandments as part of their religion supposed to think going into that courthouse?

I take offense to those slaveowners being in front of the courthouse. What am I supposed to think as a black man when presented by that on the way into the courts? Nah - if we don't want to offend/scare someone, put some plants out front.

They're laws to religious texts, whose role in 21st Century government is both outmoded and cynical. (At the same time, no less.)

The *point* is that the image of Moses on the frieze wasn't installed by Justice Rehnquist. And seeing as how it's actually *embedded* in the building, removing it is next to impossible.

You don't watch much HGTV with a wife I take it. If they wanted to take it out, it could easily be done - and likely for less than $1000 bucks.

 

[heavenly]

I have no problems with 1/2 of the 10 commandments being posted on state or federal property by gov't officials, specifically, commandments 5 - 10. If there were no laws created based on these commandments, then I believe there would be total chaos in this country. We need a gov't to create and enforce laws based on commandments 5 - 10. I think, imo, that is being religiously neutral.

However, creating laws based on commandments 1 - 4, poses a real problem. Then, the issue becomes Which God am I to obey? And on what day (Sabbath) should I worship this God? Saturday or Sunday? The 4th commandment does say "seventh day", correct?


I don't understand mainstream christians at all. In my conversations, they love to scream and shout that they're under the new covenant of grace, and no longer under Law. If so, what's the problem with the citizens who are against the posting up of the 10 Commandments statue?

 

[olimario]

However, creating laws based on commandments based on 1 - 4, poses a real problem. Then, the issue becomes Which God am I to obey? And on what day (Sabbath) should I worship this God? Saturday or Sunday? The 4th commandment does say "seventh day", correct?

The erection of a statue bearing those commandments is not enacting them into US law.

 

[hippie]

"We have staked the whole of all 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.""

President James Madison (1751-1836)
4th President of the United States and Chief Architect of the Constitution

 

[heavenly]

The erection of a statue bearing those commandments is not enacting them into US law.

I agree with you, Oli. I just think there are double standards amongst christians when it comes to this issue. What's the need to erect a statue of the 10 Commandments, when one no longer thinks they're binding?

 

[Phoenix]

I agree with you, Oli. I just think there are double standards amongst christians when it comes to this issue. What's the need to erect a statue of the 10 Commandments, when one no longer thinks they're binding?

The same reason we put up speed limit signs that no one follows

 

[DarthWoo]

"We have staked the whole of all 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.""

President James Madison (1751-1836)
4th President of the United States and Chief Architect of the Constitution

That would be so clever, if only it wasn't a falsely attributed quote.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

 

[sprsk]

olimarion said erection

 

[Phoenix]

That would be so clever, if only it wasn't a falsely attributed quote.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

And its odd, because it would have been just as useful to use this one

* John Jay, one of the framers of the Constitution, was appointed by George Washington in 1789 to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (and later served two terms as governor of New York). He wrote, in a private letter (1797) to clergyman Jedidiah Morse:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world. Whatever may be the virtue, discernment, and industry of the writers, I am persuaded that truth and error (though in different degrees) will imperceptibly become and remain mixed and blended until they shall be separated forever by the great and last refining fire.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Anyone besides me realize that coveting thy neighbors ass is the binding principle of capitalism?

 

[DarthWoo]

Nobody said they're binding, but one of the arguments that is too frequently used is that they are such a strong part of our "legal history." That's hilarious, considering that the 1 and 3, if nothing else, are contrary to the free exercise clause when applied to non-christians. Most of the rest correspond to no valid laws. The three commandments that have anything to do with laws in effect today were part of nearly every civilized society's code of laws, regardless of their dominant religion, or complete lack of any contact with christianity at their inception.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Nobody said they're binding, but one of the arguments that is too frequently used is that they are such a strong part of our "legal history." That's hilarious, considering that the 1 and 3, if nothing else, are contrary to the free exercise clause when applied to non-christians. Most of the rest correspond to no valid laws. The three commandments that have anything to do with laws in effect today were part of nearly every civilized society's code of laws, regardless of their dominant religion, or complete lack of any contact with christianity at their inception.

That's kinda what I'm thinking. I mean the ones that are laws have pretty much been laws before Christianity.

 

[heavenly]

The same reason we put up speed limit signs that no one follows

So, true. But, the difference to me is that we all agree that the the speed limit signs are binding, whether one is a christian or not. However, the same cannot be said of the majority of christians. They don't all agree that the 10 Commandments are binding. They believe that the new covenant of grace has replaced the Law.

Where are all the "new covenant grace" christians fighting against this erection of the 10 Commandments statue? Doesn't this go against their beliefs? Doesn't this place them back under the old covenant?

 

[AssMan]

Hmmm. Just watched something on CNN earlier. What's the difference between a dollar bill saying "in god we trust" and the 10 commandments? Hypocrisy?

 

[demon]

Hmmm. Just watched something on CNN earlier. What's the difference between a dollar bill saying "in god we trust" and the 10 commandments? Hypocrisy?

Kinda. Although "In God We Trust" doesn't necessarily refer to any specific religion.

 

[olimario]

Kinda. Although "In God We Trust" doesn't necessarily refer to any specific religion.

Wont the people who worship only goddesses be offended?

 

[demon]

Wont the people who worship only goddesses be offended?

Are female table servers not "waiters"? You're getting into a trivial matter of gender-specific semantics. If they changed it to "In Deity We Trust" would you be happy?

 

[olimario]

Are female table servers not "waiters"? You're getting into a trivial matter of gender-specific semantics. If they changed it to "In Deity We Trust" would you be happy?

I was never sad. I'm fine with current currency terminology.

 

[Phoenix]

Kinda. Although "In God We Trust" doesn't necessarily refer to any specific religion.

Not a specific religion, but it is a monotheistic concept.

 

[AntoneM]

10 commandments this 10 commandments that. I don't give a damn whether or not the founding fathers intended for everyone to be good Christians and follow the 10 commandments. The fact is they are not alive right now and no one should have the authority to rule from beyond the grave. I cannot see how it is right or fair for someone who wasn't even alive when I was born having authority over what I can or cannot do. If I happen to agree with what they said and the laws they laid out, fine, but if I disagree there should be no reason to continue following thier laws and ideas. That said, the statue should go, and Christians need to get over the fact that the founding fathers were "Christian" (many were deists).

 

[olimario]

10 commandments this 10 commandments that. I don't give a damn whether or not the founding fathers intended for everyone to be good Christians and follow the 10 commandments. The fact is they are not alive right now and no one should have the authority to rule from beyond the grave. I cannot see how it is right or fair for someone who wasn't even alive when I was born having authority over what I can or cannot do. If I happen to agree with what they said and the laws they laid out, fine, but if I disagree there should be no reason to continue following thier laws and ideas. That said, the statue should go, and Christians need to get over the fact that the founding fathers were "Christian" (many were deists).

Why should the statue go?

 

[Phoenix]

If I happen to agree with what they said and the laws they laid out, fine, but if I disagree there should be no reason to continue following thier laws and ideas. That said, the statue should go, and Christians need to get over the fact that the founding fathers were "Christian" (many were deists).

Your argument was fine until you derail it right here. Whether or not you agree with the law is irrelevant - the law is what the law is, you are obligated to obey it regardless of when you were born.

 

[AntoneM]

it should go due to the fact that as the contitution is currently interpreted, it is a violation of national law.

--edit--
I violates what is currently the intent of the law.

 

[WedgeX]

Kinda. Although "In God We Trust" doesn't necessarily refer to any specific religion.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

Oh, but it does, but it does.

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins.

No particular god, eh?

 

[AntoneM]

Your argument was fine until you derail it right here. Whether or not you agree with the law is irrelevant - the law is what the law is, you are obligated to obey it regardless of when you were born.

I never said I was going to disobey the law, the point I was making is that it doesn't matter what the founding father said, it matters what the current government says.

 

[3phemeral]

Is it just me, or would it have been awesome if Jesus said something like this...

 

[videogamer]

Then you're wrong for judging a person based on personal belief. If he rules fairly and has the education and experience to be a judge, then by all means he should be one. He should not be fired based on personal belief but rather on his ruling record.

The judge is up there as a government representative and as such he has ruled according to our government's laws and nothing else. He has done his job and has done nothing wrong.

I'm "judging" him as a government employee, not as an individual. Don't put words in my mouth. Never did I say that he cannot believe in something. How he expresses it as an employee is different. Consider the case of the woman who was fired for having a Kerry bumper sticker on her car... we should do the same to this guy.

Tom Delay interprets the 1st ammendment as I do, that the government should not be ruled in any form by a religion.

It's so black and white.

From that quote, he doesn't want a state church like the Anglican church... a totally different matter from saying that the church-state barrier does not exist.

Assman: About "In God We Trust", it does seem very hypocritical indeed. Hopefully it will be changed in my lifetime.

 

[peedi]

Why must people always invoke the founding fathers in an attempt to justify outmoded, anachronistic bullshit that drags this country further through the muck of troglodytism? If you want to live like Cavemen Christians, start your own sect, move to Colorado and erect as many "statues" as your 100lb body can muster, olimario.

The founding fathers believed it was their god given right to own slaves; they felt that it was their god given right to deny female suffrage; they felt it was their god given right to wipe out an entire nation that inconveniently lived here before they arrived.

These men were not models of virtue. No, they were abhorrent hypocrites who praised god while trampling upon the rights of any who didn't bow before the myth of their superiority.

No one is preventing you from worshipping God. They are, however, putting a STOP to state-sanctioned proselytization.

How difficult is that for you to grasp? QUITE, apparently.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

mmmm, i cant wait for my religious civil war. it's gona be sweet.

 

[AssMan]

Wait a minute. A homeless man is suing, because of the statue, right?

 

[Celicar]

I'm of a religious background and I'm against it. To me there is a very good and valid reason for a separation of church and state. It made sense when it was first thought up and makes even more sense now. The two should not be allowed to co-mingle and anyone who can't leave their personal faith at the door when their in public office should be banned from any position of governmental responsibility.

Well I'm against it too, but I KNEW GAF would be up in arms about this. So predictable.