We MUST take down the Statue of Liberty!!

[Wag]

It's a symbolic acknowledgement that our rules and laws were based on the expressly Christian ideal of freedom and equality.

Actually, that's the Judeo-Christian ideal.

 

[rickn]

one crazy judge put that monument there, and probably billed the state for it. it has no place there. our government does not promote christianity. We are not a Theocracy

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: jahawkin
I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone confuse Roman mythology with religion. Way to go!!

Are you seriously implying that people didn't believe in and worship Roman gods? :Q

Nice try tho.

Not anymore, and not when the French gave us the statue. There is a reason we call it mythology and not religion.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: rickn
one crazy judge put that monument there, and probably billed the state for it. it has no place there. our government does not promote christianity. We are not a Theocracy

A statue doesn't promote Christianity (no more than the Statue of Liberty promotes the worship of Roman gods and goddesses) nor does the statue make America a theocracy. Unless it's a magic statue, then maybe.

Nobody makes a ruckus about the Statue of Librerty. It represents the ideals of freedom. We don't believe in everything about the Roman pantheon, but that idea is celebrated. Similarly, you may not believe in everything about the Bible, but we can celebrate the rules which have served as the backbone for the laws of the Western world.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
I don't think anyone worships Liberta or any of the Roman gods, but than I could be wrong.

The statue of liberty is a symbol of America and her freedom, the ten commandments is a religious symbol. If you can't see the difference, than maybe you should move to another country. In the constitution it clearly states theres should be a seperation between church and state. Putting the ten commandments in public display is clearly a promotion of religion. It's one of those things seperates us from a theorcracy like Iran.

...so those very same freedoms you proclaim are not extended to him, given that "he can't see the difference?" Why, then, did you suggest that he leave the country?

I merely suggested that he move to another country if he believe that the church and state should be one. That's all .
But feel free to twist my words anyway you want.

Damn, you're ignorant. No offense, cause alot of people are.

A Christian state could never exist. Christianity is BASED on the fact that all men are free to choose to become Christians or not. That's why God allowed Adam and Eve to fall. He wants you to CHOOSE to be a Christian. Forcing people to be Christians goes against God's Will. The second you enforce Christianity you have ceased to be Christian. A state founded to give Christianity a place to flourish, however, would be any state where people are free. That's America.

But you'd know that if you cracked a book once in a while.

A statue of the Ten Commandments isn't forcing Christianity on people. It doesn't make America like Iran. You're not going to have your hand chopped off for having impure thoughts. It's a symbolic acknowledgement that our rules and laws were based on the expressly Christian ideal of freedom and equality. If you recall, no other nation had this kind of freedom UNTIL America. Even England was ruled by a monarchy at the time which DID force religeon on its people.

God may have given us free choice but people have taken his word and twisted it, as people twist the words of others here.

The question is not God's intent for man but man's intent. Displaying the Ten Commandments in the state courthouse lobby sends a message to everyone who enters whether they are Christian or Jew, Muslim or agnostic, Buddhist or Shinto, that the state has endorsed the Judeo-Christian version of law.

We are a nation which supposedly allows freedom to worship as well as freedom to not worship. We cannot endorse any religion. This is one of the reasons the founders were enlightened enough to separate church and state.

And the nation that gave us the Statue of Liberty, although a majority Catholic nation, shared in the birth of freedom and helped the fledgling colonies secure ours from the British. Many people choose to forget the contribution the French made in the Revolution. I don't.

I treasure the gift they gave us in NY harbor. She is a symbol to the world of what our nation can be.

 

[DML1001]

There is no roman goddess Liberta.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: rickn
one crazy judge put that monument there, and probably billed the state for it. it has no place there. our government does not promote christianity. We are not a Theocracy

A statue doesn't promote Christianity (no more than the Statue of Liberty promotes the worship of Roman gods and goddesses) nor does the statue make America a theocracy. Unless it's a magic statue, then maybe.

Nobody makes a ruckus about the Statue of Librerty. It represents the ideals of freedom. We don't believe in everything about the Roman pantheon, but that idea is celebrated. Similarly, you may not believe in everything about the Bible, but we can celebrate the rules which have served as the backbone for the laws of the Western world.

You should tell those wailing and gnashing their teeth about the insignificance of their monument. They seem to think that it's removal is persecution and Anti-Christian.

Re: Statue of Liberty, other than the name, the inscription on it defines it as a symbol of Freedom. You will also notice that it makes no mention of Roman beliefs or of a Religion surrounding the "Goddess". OTOH, the "10 Commandments" monument promotes a "God" and commands that "God" as being the only one.

 

[LunarRay]

The Ten Commandments are simply the laws a freed people chose to live by. Moses, a man, presented them to the people he led. He said "God gave them to me to give to you (probably)) but, they are no different than the laws Congress or the State House give us. They in Congress pray and function as representatives and live as Christians and Jews and others. They often ask for God's help in making the right decision on a law... so who, if God is God, gives them the law to give us. No difference exists in the two laws.
The monument simply identifies a place of law. The Statue of Liberty is far different. It is a symbol of the unalienable right of liberty that the Creator bestowed upon each human as per our Declaration of Independence which is not a law but, a document of defiance. The Constitution, a law, wishes to insure liberty for ourselves and our posterity, but not everyone.

 

[BOBDN]

STATUE of LIBERTY FACTS

Ancient Rome History Resource

Roman Gods and Goddesses.
The Romans inherited and assimilated their gods and goddesses from the Ancient Greeks.

Apollo was the god of the arts, especially poetry and music.

Bacchus (Dionysos) was the god of wine and mysteries

Ceres (Demeter) was the goddess of agriculture and fertility

Diana (Artemis) was the goddess of the hunt and protector of children

Juno (Hera) was the goddess of marriage; consort of Jupiter

Jupiter (Zeus) was the god of the sky; ruler of the Roman pantheon

Mars (Ares) was the god of war

Mercury (Hermes) was the god of merchants; messenger of the gods

Minerva (Athena) was the goddess of wisdom, war, and crafts

Neptune (Poseidon) was the god of the sea and earthquakes

Venus (Aphrodite) was the goddess of love and beauty

Vulcan (Hephaistos) was the god of smiths and metal-workers

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: rickn
one crazy judge put that monument there, and probably billed the state for it. it has no place there. our government does not promote christianity. We are not a Theocracy

A statue doesn't promote Christianity (no more than the Statue of Liberty promotes the worship of Roman gods and goddesses) nor does the statue make America a theocracy. Unless it's a magic statue, then maybe.

Nobody makes a ruckus about the Statue of Librerty. It represents the ideals of freedom. We don't believe in everything about the Roman pantheon, but that idea is celebrated. Similarly, you may not believe in everything about the Bible, but we can celebrate the rules which have served as the backbone for the laws of the Western world.

Moore's monument promoted Christianity. Perhaps you haven't seen it? Moore's own words indicated that he intended the monument to be a declaration of Christian beliefs.

The statue of liberty hardly promotes any religion over another. Can you point out any group in this country that actively worships the Roman Goddess Libertas? Your point pretty much hinges on that.

The U.S. legal system was based on English common law, not the ten commandments.

 

[LunarRay]

Consider an atheist walking into Moore's court passing by the horrible monument (in his mind) and enters the courthouse. There upon the bench sits Judge Moore (lets say he is a devote Mormon) and the atheist is charged with selling cigarettes and booze to minors. Which is the greater worry?

 

[Spyro]

The U.S. legal system was based on English common law

Out of blank curiousity then, what were those based on?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Spyro

The U.S. legal system was based on English common law

Out of blank curiousity then, what were those based on?[/Q



"There a conscious effort by those involved (lawyers and judges) to keep the law pure: not to change it, but to apply it. This principle is called stare decisis, Latin, which literally translated means, "stand by things decided." Stare decisis has come to us as a most sacred rule of law. A judge is to apply the law as it is presented to him through the previous decisions of the court; it is not the judge's function to make or remake the law that is the function of the legislature.4 However, judges do make law even though they try not to; indeed it is their function, under a system of common law, to do so; but not consciously and only over the course of time, many years, as numerous similar cases are heard and decided. The common law has been and is built up like pearls in an oyster, slowly and always in response to some small personal aggravation, infinitesimal layer after infinitesimal layer. It is built up upon the adjudications of courts: "

Edit to insert this

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Spyro

The U.S. legal system was based on English common law

Out of blank curiousity then, what were those based on?

I Googled it and found this explanation.

"Common Law
(Lat. communis, general, of general application; lex, law)

The term is of English origin and is used to describe the juridical principles and general rules regulating the possession, use and inheritance of property and the conduct of individuals, the origin of which is not definitely known, which have been observed since a remote period of antiquity, and which are based upon immemorial usages and the decisions of the law courts as distinct from the lex scripta; the latter consisting of imperial or kingly edicts or express acts of legislation. That pre-eminent English lawyer and law-writer, Sir William Blackstone, states in his "Commentaries upon the Laws of England" that the common law consists of rules properly called leges non script?, because their original institution and authority were not set down in writing as Acts of Parliament are, but they receive their binding power and the force of laws, by long immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout the kingdom; and, quoting from a famous Roman author, Aulus Gellius, he follows him in defining the common law as did Gellius the Jus non scriptum as that which is "tacito illiterato hominum consensu et moribus expressum" (expressed in the usage of the people, and accepted by the tacit unwritten consent of men)."

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Consider an atheist walking into Moore's court passing by the horrible monument (in his mind) and enters the courthouse. There upon the bench sits Judge Moore (lets say he is a devote Mormon) and the atheist is charged with selling cigarettes and booze to minors. Which is the greater worry?

Please. Consider that Judge Roy Moore makes a horrible ruling based on his religeous beliefs (What you're all saying you're afraid of). The ruling is challenged and overturned. Moore is removed for abusing power. End of story. If he's not abusing his power in the courtroom, then who cares what he puts in the hallway?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Consider an atheist walking into Moore's court passing by the horrible monument (in his mind) and enters the courthouse. There upon the bench sits Judge Moore (lets say he is a devote Mormon) and the atheist is charged with selling cigarettes and booze to minors. Which is the greater worry?

Please. Consider that Judge Roy Moore makes a horrible ruling based on his religeous beliefs (What you're all saying you're afraid of). The ruling is challenged and overturned. Moore is removed for abusing power. End of story. If he's not abusing his power in the courtroom, then who cares what he puts in the hallway?

See my 5:26pm post. I see nothing wrong with the monument for the reasons stated in that post.
He, Moore, was elected based on his stated beliefs and now some wish to recall his monument because they cannot attack him directly. Get at him through the monument. A recall of sorts.. Cleaver..

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Spyro

The U.S. legal system was based on English common law

Out of blank curiousity then, what were those based on?

I Googled it and found this explanation.

"Common Law
(Lat. communis, general, of general application; lex, law)

The term is of English origin and is used to describe the juridical principles and general rules regulating the possession, use and inheritance of property and the conduct of individuals, the origin of which is not definitely known, which have been observed since a remote period of antiquity, and which are based upon immemorial usages and the decisions of the law courts as distinct from the lex scripta; the latter consisting of imperial or kingly edicts or express acts of legislation. That pre-eminent English lawyer and law-writer, Sir William Blackstone, states in his "Commentaries upon the Laws of England" that the common law consists of rules properly called leges non script?, because their original institution and authority were not set down in writing as Acts of Parliament are, but they receive their binding power and the force of laws, by long immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout the kingdom; and, quoting from a famous Roman author, Aulus Gellius, he follows him in defining the common law as did Gellius the Jus non scriptum as that which is "tacito illiterato hominum consensu et moribus expressum" (expressed in the usage of the people, and accepted by the tacit unwritten consent of men)."

Would you believe if I told you that I googled it too and I was just reading the exact same thing. :/

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Spyro

The U.S. legal system was based on English common law

Out of blank curiousity then, what were those based on?

I Googled it and found this explanation.

"Common Law
(Lat. communis, general, of general application; lex, law)

The term is of English origin and is used to describe the juridical principles and general rules regulating the possession, use and inheritance of property and the conduct of individuals, the origin of which is not definitely known, which have been observed since a remote period of antiquity, and which are based upon immemorial usages and the decisions of the law courts as distinct from the lex scripta; the latter consisting of imperial or kingly edicts or express acts of legislation. That pre-eminent English lawyer and law-writer, Sir William Blackstone, states in his "Commentaries upon the Laws of England" that the common law consists of rules properly called leges non script?, because their original institution and authority were not set down in writing as Acts of Parliament are, but they receive their binding power and the force of laws, by long immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout the kingdom; and, quoting from a famous Roman author, Aulus Gellius, he follows him in defining the common law as did Gellius the Jus non scriptum as that which is "tacito illiterato hominum consensu et moribus expressum" (expressed in the usage of the people, and accepted by the tacit unwritten consent of men)."

Would you believe if I told you that I googled it too and I was just reading the exact same thing. :/

 

[Isla]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
I don't see the Statue of Liberty telling us to only honer her as our only God and that we can't use her name in vain. Next.........

Hmmmm.

Liberty Damn!

Nah.

 

[Gaard]

I heard that in the place of the 10 commandments they're going to put in a monument listing the Nine Satanic Statements. The people who are against removing the 10 commandments will obviously put up a fight if this is targetted for removal also, right?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I heard that in the place of the 10 commandments they're going to put in a monument listing the Nine Satanic Statements. The people who are against removing the 10 commandments will obviously put up a fight if this is targetted for removal also, right?

Gaard, Are the law books on the shelf in the courthouse indicative of law as the 10 Commandments are. The source of both are human. In the case of Moses, God gave them to him. In the case of the law books, the law was written after the writer ask God for help, which I presume she got.. Not all of the writers but most..

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Gaard
I heard that in the place of the 10 commandments they're going to put in a monument listing the Nine Satanic Statements. The people who are against removing the 10 commandments will obviously put up a fight if this is targetted for removal also, right?

Gaard, Are the law books on the shelf in the courthouse indicative of law as the 10 Commandments are. The source of both are human. In the case of Moses, God gave them to him. In the case of the law books, the law was written after the writer ask God for help, which I presume she got.. Not all of the writers but most..

Not really sure what they say but I was under the impression that the arguement for keeping Moore's monument was because it didn't break any "Seperation' rule.

 

[Wag]

In the case of the law books, the law was written after the writer ask God for help, which I presume she got..

That's an awfully huge assumption.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Gaard
I heard that in the place of the 10 commandments they're going to put in a monument listing the Nine Satanic Statements. The people who are against removing the 10 commandments will obviously put up a fight if this is targetted for removal also, right?

Gaard, Are the law books on the shelf in the courthouse indicative of law as the 10 Commandments are. The source of both are human. In the case of Moses, God gave them to him. In the case of the law books, the law was written after the writer ask God for help, which I presume she got.. Not all of the writers but most..

Not really sure what they say but I was under the impression that the arguement for keeping Moore's monument was because it didn't break any "Seperation' rule.

I proffer a "Friend of the Court" brief. Where in, my argument looks to the irrelevance of the argument against the monument for other reasons. The Constitution clearly gives the States the power of Religion and laws regarding it by virtue of limiting the Federal Government in the 1st and the 10th Amendment.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Wag

In the case of the law books, the law was written after the writer ask God for help, which I presume she got..

That's an awfully huge assumption.

Not if you consider the fact that the Congress and State Legislature pray before session and they almost to the person openly state they are Christian, Jew, Mormon etc. and that they pray for guidance. So, it follows that if God is the same God Moses visited that inspires and answers the prayers of Bush and the Congress and Clinton and all of them.. there'd be no difference there. The monument of the law some 4500 years old seems not much different than the monument of the law today... different material.. but, used as simple decoration.