Reply With Quote
Two and a half tons of granite in a court building is a stunt. If you think the displays are so great, put one of those granite slabs in your front yard.
[QUOTE] Okay, that's you're personal opinion but I've never heard of them referred to as stunts, and obviously I disagree.
So do I and shame on the ACLU and others for politicizing them.I find the use of them as a political football completely repulsive.
There was a time, not so long ago, when these monuments weren't an issue which would mean that they weren't a stunt.
Two and a half tons of granite in a court building is a stunt. If you think the displays are so great, put one of those granite slabs in your front yard.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that would substantiate that these monuments were erected as a stunt or is it purely conjecture on your part?
Yes, I have Roy Moore's diary.
The intent is irrelevant. Either it's okay or it's not.
Those who do not support it see it as an endorsement of a single religion. Those who do support it argue that it isn't an endorsement, in which case it's simply a piece of decoration... in which case, who cares?
I'm more inclined to see it as a piece of historical decoration than a provocative statement about the Bible's role in our laws. As such, I don't really care if it's in our courts or not. So if enough people are uncomfortable with it, and it holds no role above decoration to the people who are comfortable with it, then it probably doesn't belong there.
Several courts have approved of a historical display of the ten commandments, especially when integrated into a larger display including other do ents which provide more context. I believe a display in Oklahoma does this with the Mayflower compact and some native American do ents.I'm more inclined to see it as a piece of historical decoration than a provocative statement about the Bible's role in our laws.
OTOH, you have Judge Moore sticking this huge slab of granite in the Alabama Supreme Court lobby, saying on video tapes of the installation which were sold by a christian ministry:
"Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgment of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded....May this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land."
Which is more likely to be seen as a stunt?
Oh I have no doubt Judge Moore's intent was to make a religious statement, and while it does make me less sympathetic for his cause, I just don't think it makes a difference in deciding whether or not it's an appropriate display. The display speaks for itself.
In other words, if an agnostic judge from San Francisco erected the exact same monument because his friend was the sculptor, I don't think it would be any more permissible than one erected by an ultra-religious judge.
[
You posted my quote of "tough it out" and paraphased it as "go to "?I quoted you on your erroneous historical statement. Maybe I should draw a line in my post or expressly indicate that I'm no longer quoting you. As to the "tough it out" sentiment, I didn't quote you -- I paraphrased.
Sorry, as stated before there's no similarity between the two and that would effectively render your paraphrase as null and void.
Disingenuous.
There was no dodging, just pointing out how ridiculous your paraphrasing was.It's an interesting dodge to try to state the converse of a point without addressing the merits of the point that was made.
In a huff?Since you're in such a huffGet some fresh tea leaves, the ones your using have malfunctioned. (Why do you pretend to know how I'm feeling when I'm posting?) Your intention is to insinuate that I'm in a huff and therefore possibly irrational? (Disingenuous. Part II)
We're not in a Court of Law here FWD, no jurors to sway. Your posts are regularly with merit, so lets stop with the gamesmanship.
The desire needs to accurately reflect the intent of the Amendment. Does that symbolism cons ute Congress having made a law respecting the establishment of a religion? If so, cite the law.Nobody with any intelligence at all is truly seeking to suppress Christian symbolism and reference to God -- the desire is to keep government out of supporting displays of Christian symbolism and making references to God.
(Would you like "In God We Trust" removed from our currency)?
I don't need government to endorse, echo or parrot my beliefs. The question is, are they in violation of the First Amendment by erecting a monument to the Ten Commandments, by having "In God We Trust" on our currency or by having children in Public Schools voluntarily recite the Pledge?My question is: why is your ability to do those things insufficient why is there any need for government to endorse your religious viewpoint? why is there any need for government to parrot your display or to echo your religious statement?
That issue has nothing to do with my personal religious freedom. They are two separate and unique issues and thats why IMO you'll never get the answer you seek. The question is delusive.
Okay, but the Cons ution was not intended to respect the one irate, hypothetically but unsubstantiated injured citizen while simultaneously disrespecting and disregarding the rest.It's about the fact that in every respect, the Cons ution serves to protect the rights of the 1 in 50,000 -- those who aren't in the religious or social majority.
Is there something wrong with Government reflecting a sense of morality?Your question urges me to wonder why people should object to governmental involvement in religion. Mine asks you why people need or even want government to be involved in religion, however subtly.
That's what I thought.
Were Judge Moore's words to big to understand, too?
joch, are you seriously trying to tell us that "tough it out" or "just get over it and move on" does not imply dissmisal? You might as well say "go to " which is what you mean really. You're dismissing other people's belief as unimportant. FromWayDownTown posed a rather interesting question in his first post and you have yet to answer it. If the situation were reversed, would you not object to the government endorsing the Islamic faith as it is clearly doing with the Christian faith now?
[QUOTE]Moore's primary reason for erecting the monumnet is that he believes them to be sacred and unassailable. The notoriety of the monument is secondary. With that in mind, referring to it as a stunt would be incorrect.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, so go to !
Or, yes, that's what I'm saying, get over it.
Did each statement elicit the same emotion from you?
Yes. They did.
And the ensuing "rock tour" across Alabama with the sacred commandments lashed to a flatbed truck?
Moore obviously stuck the slab in there to start a fight in the courts.
Stunt.
if what you are saying concerns me, then yes. You're telling me to basically stop complaining and shut up, and I'm supposed to react differently simply because you didn't put it bluntly
by the way, again you manage to avoid the question joch. Would you or would you not mind the government endorsing Islam as openly as the US government endorses Christianity? and not only that, but going by your statement, telling you to "tough it out" and "get over it" when instead of having "in God we trust" in your currency, you have "All praise Allah"?
I mean -- it was a stunt, get over it.
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
Methinks you are crediting him with WAY too much foresight.
Moore pretty much owes his judicial career to the ten commandments and prayer in courtroom issues dating back to 1994, so I don't see how you can say he never gave it any thought.
I don't remember where it was, but it's in Washington D.C, I think the big daddy of them all court-houses, well anyway they have a place were they have all statues of the great religous figures of the world today. Just wanted to comment. LOL
Gee, Joch. I wonder why I didn't devote the time to make a statement about the theme of the thread. This has been hashed over and over and over again, and you dodge the points left and right like you dodged my question (which you still haven't bothered to answer). So why should I jump on the merry-go-round this time? Its the same old game with you.
So I ask once again, what was ammusing about using church bells to drown out the muslim prayers?
Yeah, I suppose he considers himself a crusader. However, if he actually gave it some thought it seems he would have arrived at the fact that it's not a winning fight, it's just a firestorm. He is either a believer, an attention , or so militant that he's forgotten that he's supposed to be a christian. He certainly isn't very smart, which is why I suggested that you are giving him too much credit.
Actually, I just remembered (and verified) that Moore ran for governor. Using something like that as a political springboard certainly lends some more credence to the "stunt" argument.
The run for governor, book deals and a columnist job followed the monument episode.
If it was only about the commandments, he could have stuck to the woodcarving of them in his courtroom that started it all over a decade ago.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
