Do recent court rulings violate the 1st amendment right by condemning religion and promoting atheism?

[Nitemare]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Removing the 10 commandments is clearly a violation of the 1st amendment as was the introduction of the bill in trying to make the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional.

That is my take on it. I am a deply spiritual man, but I would not consider myself religious by any means. I think religion taken in small quantities promotes stability, a set of personal moralities, and provides a faith and healing circle in times of need. What is everyone elses feedback?

 

[Orsorum]

To which recent court cases are you referring?

 

[Red Dawn]

I think religion taken in small quantities promotes stability, a set of personal moralities, and provides a faith and healing circle in times of need.

And should be kept at a personal level.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I think religion taken in small quantities promotes stability, a set of personal moralities, and provides a faith and healing circle in times of need.

And should be kept at a personal level.

Exactly

 

[CaptnKirk]

The problem is that with 'Fredom OF Religion' also comes 'Freedom FROM Religion'
What comes into play at this point is invoking a 'Christian' viewpoint on others that may be religious, but of other faiths.

Christianity is the leading religion in the US, but there are Cathloics, Jews, Muslins, Buddists - 'Others'
The courts are trying to keep government involvement neutral, as it becomes too easy to force opinions
which could be maniopulated into policy at the whim of the 'Flavor of the Day' political leadership.

 

[zantac]

I don't see it as promoting atheism. I couldnt care less if someone worshipped God or a shoebox. I don't think that statue should be there. It doesn't just have the 10 Commandments on it, it has religious writing all over it. If the 10 Commandments were there along with the Magna Carta, etc, all of the sources to the origins of laws in our country, I would think it would be appropriate.

 

[Gaard]

Promoting atheism? How?

 

[Bulk Beef]

Removing the 10 commandments is clearly a violation of the 1st amendment as was the introduction of the bill in trying to make the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional.

The placement of the monument was unconstitutional, as was the addition to the pledge. The recent rulings are simply trying to undo those violations.

Personally, I think it's a little silly that such a huge deal was made of the violations, especially the pledge, but faced with the decision, the courts made the right choice.

<-agnostic that was never really offended over saying "under God"

 

[Dedpuhl]

They should remove the 10 commandments and replace it with the Code of Hammurabi...

 

[dmcowen674]

There is a battle raging here just two towns from me here in Winder Georgia for the past two years. They have a picture size version of the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse Wall, been there for probably as long as the Courthouse was built. The ACLU made the demand that the Commandments come down. They recently backed down til after they see what happens with the Alabama case.

ACLU asks county to remove Ten Commandments in courthouse lobby

Barrow commission faces off with ACLU Ready to do 'whatever it takes' to keep the Ten Commandments

A commandment is just that

You cannot have selective enforcement. If the Alabama State owned Courthouse must remove the Monument by Federal Mandate then all references everywhere in the United States must be removed. Must take in God We Trust off buildings and money as well as no longer asking people to raise their hand and swear in court etc.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl
They should remove the 10 commandments and replace it with the Code of Hammurabi...

That would rock. If only our court system would adopt it in their rulings

 

[shuan24]

Are you implying that the court rulings are based on the 10 commandments Nitemare?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Promoting atheism? How?

Atheism is anti-religion as in not having a God. The 10 commandments were introduced in the old testament by a figure who exists in 3 of the largest religions by the same divine deity that they all worship.

I'm agnostic and it offends me that some group deems that it is unconstitutional, when they are clearly in violation of the same amendment which they hide behind. Unless they are hold prayer meetings during court they are not in violation. Also, this is not a federal matter more along the lines of a local one, state or county.

Where was the broohaha when he installed it 2 years ago. If the locals want to create a bronze sculpture of Jesus' heiny and allow the accused to rub it for good luck before they go in to court sobeit, it's not a federal matter.

Provided it not offend a large amount of local denizens who see it every day then what's the friggin deal? I'm sure you will find a bible and maybe a crucifix in the hands of the justice of the peace, who is usually in a court building and a government employee I might add.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Promoting atheism? How?

i know....

unless the gov starts giving money to athiest organizations and declares "there is no god" on money and institutions, it is not promoting athiesm, its just not favoring anyones beliefs over anyone elses. the fact he thinks that absense of promotion by itself is promotion of athiesm is quite sad.

and the fact is, the original pledge/money didn't refer to god. it was the bible thumpers who defiled the money/pledge with religion quite a bit later in the 1960s.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: shuan24
Are you implying that the court rulings are based on the 10 commandments Nitemare?

At no time did I say that.

When you make an assumption you make an ass out of u and me...

Let's say I am offended by everything religous. I am a left winger "fire and brimstone" atheist or devil worshipper. I go to Salt Lake City and see these huge Mormon temples that are an affront to everything that I hold unholy. What are you going to do about it?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Gaard
Promoting atheism? How?

i know....

unless the gov starts giving money to athiest organizations and declares "there is no god" on money and institutions, it is not promoting athiesm. the fact he thinks that absense of promotion by itself is promotion of athiesm is quite sad.

and the fact is, the original pledge/money didn't refer to god. it was the bible thumpers who defiled the money/pledge with religion quite a bit later.

Isn't the removal of anything that has the word God in it or any religious symbols a good start. I am not a bible thumper and even think that churches should not be deemed non-profit organizations and should be taxed accordingly.

I'm just saying that by banishing any religious references and making a legal precedence out of it you are advocating atheism.

 

[0roo0roo]

i'm saying absense is not promotion. it merely reinforces the government as a neutral party, as it should be. right now its obviously promoting mainly christianity, as it was intended to by the people who made the changes. to a lesser degree judaism/islam. what of a hindu? what of a buddist? right now its ment to divide, not unite. its the christians government.

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: shuan24
Are you implying that the court rulings are based on the 10 commandments Nitemare?

At no time did I say that.

When you make an assumption you make an ass out of u and me...

Let's say I am offended by everything religous. I am a left winger "fire and brimstone" atheist or devil worshipper. I go to Salt Lake City and see these huge Mormon temples that are an affront to everything that I hold unholy. What are you going to do about it?

First of all, I know you didnt say that. Thats the DEFINITION of implying. I wasn't sure of your previous post was sarcastic or serious, so I wanted to ask you for clarification. I DONT KNOW WHAT ASSUMPTION YOU ARE ACCUSING ME OF.

Also, your example of Morman temples is irrelevant. Are these temples on the front lawn of court houses? Or on state grounds? I honestly dont know, but unless they are, then the example is irrelevant. If they are on federal or state property, then perhaps they should go down too (just to be fair, obviously one religion cant be favored over another.) If they are not, then they are no different than churches and temples down my street, which I have no problem them being there.

I dont know what you are getting so upset about, I merely asked you a question to clarify your previous statement.

 

[LeadMagnet]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I think religion taken in small quantities promotes stability, a set of personal moralities, and provides a faith and healing circle in times of need.

And should be kept at a personal level.

Amen to that



The Code of Hammurabi

Adultery was punished with the death of both parties by drowning, but if the husband was willing to pardon his wife, the king might intervene to pardon the paramour. For incest with his own mother, both were burned to death; with a stepmother, the man was disinherited; with a daughter, the man was exiled; with a daughter-in-law, he was drowned; with a son's betrothed, he was fined. A wife who for her lover's sake procured her husband's death was gibbeted. A betrothed girl, seduced by her prospective father-in-law, took her dowry and returned to her family, and was free to marry as she chose.

If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

Most of it seems to be about stealing, death, sex, and slaves. - just like the National Enquirer and the Bible!

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: shuan24

Also, your example of Morman temples is irrelevant. Are these temples on the front lawn of court houses? Or on state grounds?

well if they are we need to get rid of them too!

 

[kage69]

The monument never should have been put there in the first place. The religious stuff should be kept in it's respective church, temple, mosque, what have you. Anyone who doesn't think the 10 Commandments monument is a promotion of the religion is clearly letting their own pious subscription cloud their common sense. But it's not even about that anymore, it's about some dipshit who is breaking the law, plain and simple.
Removing the monument in no way condemns religion, and a court house with no religious theme is in no way an endorsement of atheism.

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: kage69
The monument never should have been put there in the first place. The religious stuff should be kept in it's respective church, temple, mosque, what have you. Anyone who doesn't think the 10 Commandments monument is a promotion of the religion is clearly letting their own pious subscription cloud their common sense. But it's not even about that anymore, it's about some dipshit who is breaking the law, plain and simple.
Removing the monument in no way condemns religion, and a court house with no religious theme is in no way an endorsement of atheism.

Amen to that.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Removing the 10 commandments is clearly a violation of the 1st amendment as was the introduction of the bill in trying to make the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional.

That is my take on it. I am a deply spiritual man, but I would not consider myself religious by any means. I think religion taken in small quantities promotes stability, a set of personal moralities, and provides a faith and healing circle in times of need. What is everyone elses feedback?

Well, first of all, the first amendment is more complicated than you make it sound. The establishment clause has been used by the USSC to ensure government neutrality in promoting religion(s). The simple answer is: no. The removal of the 10 commandments (I assume you mean in the AL, Judge Moore case) was not unconstitutional. In other cases, displays of the ten commandments have been shown to pass constitutional muster. It depends on the individual display.

I think you hit it on the head though in your other posts -- (paraphrasing) religion is a personal thing, and should not be forced upon others if they are unwilling. I think the conflict arises when Christians feel it is their "spiritual duty" to spread the word, proselytize and attempt to convert others. I'm not clear if that's an actual part of the religion or just something they are encouraged to do by their church leaders...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I think religion taken in small quantities promotes stability, a set of personal moralities, and provides a faith and healing circle in times of need.

And should be kept at a personal level.

Amen to that



The Code of Hammurabi

Adultery was punished with the death of both parties by drowning, but if the husband was willing to pardon his wife, the king might intervene to pardon the paramour. For incest with his own mother, both were burned to death; with a stepmother, the man was disinherited; with a daughter, the man was exiled; with a daughter-in-law, he was drowned; with a son's betrothed, he was fined. A wife who for her lover's sake procured her husband's death was gibbeted. A betrothed girl, seduced by her prospective father-in-law, took her dowry and returned to her family, and was free to marry as she chose.

If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

Most of it seems to be about stealing, death, sex, and slaves. - just like the National Enquirer and the Bible!

Shades of Monty Python!

 

[sandorski]

Secular(the US government) does not equal Atheist. Atheism is a point of view or rejection of a god(s) as existing. A Secular government is a separation from religious bias. An illustration of the difference(weak one) may go something like this: Secular Water Treatment System uses Chlorine or Ozone Filtering to ensure safety. In a Religious Water Treatment System, a Preist "blesses" the water.

The US government was established as a Secular Institution so it could not only allow great religious freedom, but so that it could focus on Secular(Human) affairs and let Spiritual Affairs be the focus of Independent Religious Institutions. Removing the 10 Commandents or references to "God" is not promoting Atheism, it is remaining Neutral in Spiritual Affairs.

A legitimate point has been made though, that being "States Rights". I am not really familiar with them, but if this violates those rights, then that would be a problem.

This whole(Alabama thingy) issue reminds me of the Kings in Old Testament Israel. In that time, if a new King belonged to a Religion that differed from the previous King, Idols, Temples, Altars, and the Clergy of the previous Religion were often torn down, destroyed/, or killed. The Founding Fathers were trying to avoid such ridiculousness, so they formed a Secular government that was primarily concerned with good governance in Human Affairs and so that the People could choose to be Religious Freely, if they wanted to.