KRC Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 CNN Thingy 5-4 barring Ten Commandments displays in courthouses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 CNN Thingy 5-4 barring Ten Commandments displays in courthouses. 368618[/snapback] I think the time has come to push for a constitutional amendment to force people to display God's Ten Commandments. We should package it with the Defense of Marriage amendment. We need a good catch phrase though. How about "The Civil Righteous" Amendments"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Good thing we don't have a liberal court, or people might have the fredom to display things at their workplace if they want, and people wouldn't get ousted from their homes so big business could make more money building a mall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Personally, Im downright SHOCKED the ACLU or some other left-wing group didnt get their panties all bunched up over Billy Graham having his last crusade in a public park in NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 I think the time has come to push for a constitutional amendment to force people to display God's Ten Commandments. We should package it with the Defense of Marriage amendment. We need a good catch phrase though. How about "The Civil Righteous" Amendments"? 368627[/snapback] We have the Patriot Act, so how about the Blessed Act? Who wouldn't want to be called both patriotic and blessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 When the gubmint comes to steal your land and turn it over to some rich developer you simply have to hold your press conference outside the courthouse, point out "thou shalt not steal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 If I understand this ruling correctly then 10 commandment displays that aren't overty religious are okay. Is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 If I understand this ruling correctly then10 commandment displays that aren't overty religious are okay. Is that right? 369017[/snapback] Right. They removed the religious commandments and now have two that have to do with the law. 1) Thou shall not kill and 2) Though shall not steal. I sense a Carlin bit coming on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Court House: (Bob gets called to the witness stand) Court reporter: Bob? put your left hand over your balls and repete after me. Bob: Ok Court reporter: Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me, Bob. Bob: I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me, Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 This ruling has pleased both sides. On a radio newscast today I heard the ACLU anhd a religious group both praising the ruling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 This ruling has pleased both sides. On a radio newscast today I heard the ACLU anhd a religious group both praising the ruling! 369066[/snapback] That is surely a sign of the apocalypse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 so what was their opinion on the performances of Charleton Heston and Yul Brenner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 so what was their opinion on the performances of Charleton Heston and Yul Brenner? 369098[/snapback] Heston was Overtly religious. Brenner was not. But still, Can you feel the love tonight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 This ruling has pleased both sides. On a radio newscast today I heard the ACLU anhd a religious group both praising the ruling! 369066[/snapback] Then it can't possibly be the right ruling. These two groups agreeing on something is a clear indication that the Supreme Court !@#$ed up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Today's ruling is a little weird. Some displays, such as ones that have been up for 40+ years, are allowed. Brenner chalked this up that if no one had a problem with it before, it could stay -- never minding the silent headshaking of those of other faiths, atheists, etc., but whatever. Displays in and around public property like courthouses are not allowed. Watching the evening news tho, I get flashes of Al Sadr's rhetoric. A quote from Thomas Jefferson, which runs contrary to what some people claim of the Founding Fathers: "“Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the common law.” If anyone was watching "The West Wing" this season, Alan Alda as the fiscal Republican candidate had a nice bit somewhat on this topic. ...For those that haven't been following the show this season, the Republican nominee to replace President Bartlet is a pro-choice Senator from California, Arnie Vinick (portrayed by Alan Alda). In an episode entitled "In God We Trust", Vinick's chief rival in the primary, a fundamentalist Reverend (ala Pat Robertson), drops out & refuses to be considered for the Republican VP nomination because of Vinick's pro-choice stance. However, the Reverend invites Vinick to worship at his church [that] Sunday. This is a problem since Vinick hasn't been to church in years, and the press is starting to smell controversy. It is revealed toward the end of the episode that Vinick is somewhere between agnostic & atheist. When confronted by the press he says this: Senator Vinick: "Look...I respect Reverend Butler, and I respect his church too much to use it for my own political purposes. That's exactly what I would be doing If I went down there this Sunday. The truth is that it would be an act of political phoniness. I may be wrong but I supspect our churches have enough political phonies in them." Reporter: "Senator, do you or do you not..." Senator Vinick: "I don't see how we can have a seperation of Church & State in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. And I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there. If you demand expressions of Religious Faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will, and it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes. So every day until the end of this campaign, I will answer any question anyone has on government, but if you have a question on Religion... Please go to church. Thank You." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 I personally have no problem with the courts displaying the 10 commandments. Hell, they could display porn if they want as long as their rulings are fair and just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 CNN Thingy 5-4 barring Ten Commandments displays in courthouses. 368618[/snapback] Next thing you'll know there will be a law stating that you dont have to obey the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Next thing you'll know there will be a law stating that you dont have to obey the law 369221[/snapback] Those are usually called repeals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I personally have no problem with the courts displaying the 10 commandments. Hell, they could display porn if they want as long as their rulings are fair and just. 369206[/snapback] The irony is, the Supreme Court displays the Ten Commandments. (Though they do it in the context of "the history of law"...in which case they can display all of Leviticus for all I care. The Ten Commandments as a historical legal document is a perfectly valid context). But I digress...they display the Ten Commandments, and if you want to argue the fairness and justness of their decisions...well, you going to buy any property in New London soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 The irony is, the Supreme Court displays the Ten Commandments. (Though they do it in the context of "the history of law"...in which case they can display all of Leviticus for all I care. The Ten Commandments as a historical legal document is a perfectly valid context). But I digress...they display the Ten Commandments, and if you want to argue the fairness and justness of their decisions...well, you going to buy any property in New London soon? 369267[/snapback] Indeed. Although I might buy some porn soon! Just kidding, thats what I have the internet for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts