Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jul 3, 2011 3:43:44 GMT -5
Like I said: Court houses. I say that because a court house is where people go to be judged. I would hate for these Christian symbols to given the mistaken impression that the law only applies to Christian principles.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 5:33:15 GMT -5
Like I said: Court houses. I say that because a court house is where people go to be judged. I would hate for these Christian symbols to given the mistaken impression that the law only applies to Christian principles. The SCOTUS doesn't agree with your complaints, not do I.. So since the SCOTUS has ruled the ten commandments can stay in Court Houses, guess what? You will just have to deal with it..
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 3, 2011 6:08:23 GMT -5
"So since the SCOTUS has ruled the ten commandments can stay in Court Houses, guess what? You will just have to deal with it.. " OOHHHHHhh how lucky for me. I un-ignored you figuring you just might behave yourself...but no! The SCOTUS did no such thing. This is what they actually did.... Court Split Over Commandments By Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 28, 2005 A sharply divided Supreme Court issued a split decision on the public display of the Ten Commandments on government property yesterday, forbidding framed copies on the walls of two rural Kentucky courthouses while approving a 6-foot-tall granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol in Austin. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700416.htmlYou cannot display the 10 commandments in a courthouse. It was ruled in 2005, and the SCOTUS refused to hear it in 2010. So I guess you will just have to deal with that.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 6:23:40 GMT -5
The Supreme Court handed down two 5-4 decisions Monday on displaying the Ten Commandments, allowing an exhibit at the Texas capitol and barring others at two Kentucky courthouses.
The SCOTUS ruled only on the Kentucky cases...other states have the Ten Commanments in their courthouses..
I see you only ignored me for a few hours... on well whoever said life was fair and impartial
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 3, 2011 6:26:05 GMT -5
The Supreme Court handed down two 5-4 decisions Monday on displaying the Ten Commandments, allowing an exhibit at the Texas capitol and barring others at two Kentucky courthouses. In the ruling on the Kentucky cases, the majority determined the displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that sets down the principle of separation of church and state. The amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The court has usually interpreted this to mean government actions must have a "secular purpose." Exactly. No display of the ten commandments in courthouses.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 6:29:31 GMT -5
The Supreme Court handed down two 5-4 decisions Monday on displaying the Ten Commandments, allowing an exhibit at the Texas capitol and barring others at two Kentucky courthouses. In the ruling on the Kentucky cases, the majority determined the displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that sets down the principle of separation of church and state. The amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The court has usually interpreted this to mean government actions must have a "secular purpose." Exactly. No display of the ten commandments in courthouses. Define what you mean by courthouses?? Or just 2 Courthouses in Kentucky or in all 50 states??
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 3, 2011 6:35:33 GMT -5
"Define what you mean by courthouses?? Courthouse in Kentucky or in all 50 states?? " The justices ruled 5-4 that the Ten Commandments (search) could not be displayed in court buildings or on government property. However, the Biblical laws could be displayed in an historical context, as they are in a frieze in the Supreme Court building. Notably, the first four commandments, which have to do with honoring God and the Sabbath, were obscured by the artist who designed the frieze. "The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the 'First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,'" Justice David H. Souter wrote in the majority opinion, citing previous court rulings. Read more: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160781,00.html#ixzz1R2cRUloq So, since the United states of America encompasses all 50 states, there's your answer.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 3, 2011 6:38:03 GMT -5
And look at that, I even gave you a FOX news link.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 6:38:40 GMT -5
You failed to answer this question:
Define what you mean by courthouses?? Courthouse in Kentucky or in all 50 states?? "
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 3, 2011 6:42:36 GMT -5
court·house/ˈkôrtˌhous/Noun 1. A building in which a judicial court is held. 2. A building containing the administrative offices of a county.
All 50 states. I guess you'll just have to deal with that.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 6:45:55 GMT -5
In its ruling on the Kentucky case, McCreary County v. ACLU, the 5-4 majority determined that the two framed copies of the Ten Commandments went too far in promoting a religious message and violated the so-called separation of church and state.
Where does this ruling by the SCOTUS specifically say all courthouses in the United States or does this ruling apply to the courthouses in Kentucky??
All 50 states. I guess you'll just have to deal with that
I can deal with it if you can provide the words in this ruling by the SCOTUS that it clearly states it applies to 50 states..or only Kentucky..
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 3, 2011 6:48:23 GMT -5
In its ruling on the Kentucky case, McCreary County v. ACLU, the 5-4 majority determined that the two framed copies of the Ten Commandments went too far in promoting a religious message and violated the so-called separation of church and state.Where does this ruling by the SCOTUS specifically say all courthouses in the United States or does this ruling apply to the courthouses in Kentucky?? prec·e·dent (prs-dnt) n. 1. a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances. b. Law A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 3, 2011 6:57:10 GMT -5
Man I hate it when that happens. <snicker> Not really.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 6:57:32 GMT -5
Sending mixed signals in these highly anticipated cases, the Court said displays of the Ten Commandments—ironically like ones found in its own courtroom1—are not “inherently unconstitutional.” But the justices ruled that each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in promoting religion2 According to the high court, some displays inside courthouses are permissible if they are portrayed neutrally to honor the nation’s legal history.
Ten Commandments are in their courtroom1...
The case centres on the posting of displays in Kentucky
Limited ban
The judges, however, rejected a proposal to ban Commandment displays from all public buildings.
Some displays, they decided, would be permissible if they were portrayed neutrally in order to honour America's legal history.
In a five to four ruling, the judges approved the large granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments which stands in the grounds of the Texas State Capitol.
A lawyer opposed to displaying the Commandments had argued before the Court that as so many of the Commandments refer to God, they promote religion.
But supporters of the displays maintained that removing them would create huge challenges in dealing with thousands of other religious symbols that appear in public property.
.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 7:05:42 GMT -5
"Did you read the question or just take Shirina's word for it??" You have shown that you really have nothing to offer in the way of any kind of discussion. You are here to bait people. You also have absolutely no sense of humor. I am done, and from here forward you will be ignored. Have a nice day. What about this precedent Ma'am?? My understanding of the SCOTUS ruling Re: Ten Commandments in Kentucky's 2 Courthouses when we discussed it few years ago is that the ruling only applied to those two other courthouses. And the SCOTUS would allow other courthouses have the Ten Commandments displayed but be less less ostentatious or have them outside the courtrooms.....And the ACLU objected to this so this controversy is far from over... So if my understanding is not correct then pls point out what is wrong about it...thanx for your consideration and patience..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 22:20:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2011 8:37:51 GMT -5
I'm not sure you understand what the SCOTUS does? ...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 8:46:21 GMT -5
I'm not sure you understand what the SCOTUS does? ... What does that have to do with this discussion?? This it the ruling that is what I was referring to: Some displays, they decided, would be permissible if they were portrayed neutrally in order to honour America's legal historyAnd my understanding again is the states were allowed to display the ten commandments if they were portrayed neutrally ..and they were left to interpret what "neutrally" meant or less ostentatious, I would assume??
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jul 3, 2011 8:50:43 GMT -5
Considering only 3 of the 10 commandments have any legal precedent in US law, I have to wonder about that ...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 22:20:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2011 8:53:34 GMT -5
But are you suggesting that a SCOTUS ruling is only applicable to the specific case in front of them at the moment? ... That is does not create binding legal precedent that is applicable to all states?...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 8:54:13 GMT -5
Considering only 3 of the 10 commandments have any legal precedent in US law, I have to wonder about that ... I have seen copies of the ten commandments framed in courthouses in Santa Clara County since the 2005 ruling by the SCOTUS but don't recall any large or highly visible displays of the Ten Commandments inside the courtrooms or in jury rooms when I served on a few juries recently..
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 8:59:13 GMT -5
But are you suggesting that a SCOTUS ruling is only applicable to the specific case in front of them at the moment? ... That is does not create binding legal precedent that is applicable to all states?... The wording says only centres on the Kentucky 2 courthouses and there is no specific wording in their ruling that says this decision will be precedent for all of our Federal and State Courthouses...Not sure if that is 100% but that was my understanding when I started a thread on this ruling a few years ago on the MSN Board... So does the ruling in 2005 banning the ten commandments in the 2 Kentucky Courthouses apply to all Federal and State Courthouses in all 50 states?? I am not sure but don't think it does unless you can provide the wording for that interpretation// Here's the exact wording: The case centres on the posting of displays in Kentucky
Limited ban
The judges, however, rejected a proposal to ban Commandment displays from all public buildings. US Supreme Court rules on Ten Commandments displays Not in Kentucky courthousesby Pam Sheppard June 27, 2005 • • Today (June 27), the US Supreme Court ruled that the framed copies of the Ten Commandments hanging in two Kentucky courthouses violate the separation of church and state established in the First Amendment. (It also ruled that the 6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments could remain standing on the grounds of the Texas capitol, but not inside the building.) Sending mixed signals in these highly anticipated cases, the Court said displays of the Ten Commandments-ironically like ones found in its own courtroom1-are not "inherently unconstitutional." But the justices ruled that each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in promoting religion2 According to the high court, some displays inside courthouses are permissible if they are portrayed neutrally to honor the nation's legal history. In its ruling on the Kentucky case, McCreary County v. ACLU, the 5-4 majority determined that the two framed copies of the Ten Commandments went too far in promoting a religious message and violated the so-called separation of church and state. Scopes and the Ten Commandments Did you know that there is a direct connection between the Ten Commandments and the world's most famous court trial, the 1925 Scopes trial? July marks the 80th anniversary of this momentous trial-read Ken Ham's article on this fascinating topic and find out how the removal of the 10 began with the attack on the 6 (i.e., the six days of creation recorded in Genesis). According to a report by the First Amendment Center,3 the two Kentucky counties originally posted the Ten Commandments alone but then later added other documents (all mentioning God or the Bible) after a lawsuit was filed challenging the display. When the second display was also ruled unconstitutional, county officials expanded the display to include a variety of documents (Declaration of Independence, national motto, etc.). But the court did not buy it, and ruled that the "predominate purpose for the display was religious." According to a USA Today article, framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held. Those courthouse displays are unconstitutional because their religious content is overemphasized, the justices said. In contrast to the ruling on the Kentucky case, the Texas monument, one of 17 historical displays on a 22-acre lot, was determined to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history. So, how did the court arrive at this decision? Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist discussed the complexity of this decision: "No exact formula can dictate a resolution in fact-intensive cases such as this. … The determinative factor here, however, is that 40 years passed in which the monument's presence, legally speaking, went unchallenged. And the public visiting the capitol grounds is more likely to have considered the religious aspect of the divts' message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage." While this was the first time the Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of public displays of the Ten Commandments since 1980 (when it struck down a Kentucky law that required public schools to post the Commandments), it certainly will not be the last, as more attempts are continually made to remove God and America's Christian heritage from the public square. Click to enlarge Today's split decision (5-4 ruling barring Kentucky's displays and 5-4 ruling allowing the Texas display) by the Court is a reflection of the culture war raging today in America. It is essentially a battle between those who believe God's Word and those who choose to follow man's opinions. But the battle being played out in the courts is just a symptom of a bigger problem: the removal of biblical authority from everyday life. Morality is allowed to be ripped out of the culture because people by and large no longer believe the Book on which it is founded. A return to a once-Christian society cannot occur until Christians reclaim biblical authority without compromise, beginning with God's Word in Genesis (see Our Rallying Cry). References and notes 1. As you walk up the steps to the US Supreme Court, you can see near the top of the building a row of famous lawgivers, and each one is facing Moses, who is standing in the middle holding the Ten Commandments. As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower part of the door. As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see a display of the Ten Commandments right above where the Supreme Court justices sit. 2. Associated Press, Supreme Court bars Ten Commandments at courthouses, CNN.com, www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html, June 27, 2005. 3. Haynes, C., Ten Commandments: religious messages or civics lesson? First Amendment Center, www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=14196, October 17, 2004.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 3, 2011 9:38:52 GMT -5
How far we've fallen in half a century.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 9:45:59 GMT -5
How far we've fallen in half a century. Right and we may drag down our neighbors to the North....Oh Canada our proud and native land may become tainted by us radicals and heathens in the USA..
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 3, 2011 10:04:41 GMT -5
I'm not under any delusions. If the US goes down hard, so does Canada. And the US is going down hard.
I occasionally wonder if certain interest groups in the US would deem complete moral and economic collapse "acceptable" so long as Christianity had been thoroughly expunged from the public eye when it happened.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 10:06:55 GMT -5
I'm not under any delusions. If the US goes down hard, so does Canada. And the US is going down hard. I occasionally wonder if certain interest groups in the US would deem complete moral and economic collapse "acceptable" so long as Christianity had been thoroughly expunged from the public eye when it happened. Say what you will Virgil but we have the Stanley Cup and not your buds in Vancouver....hate to rub it in...but I told you guys a few months ago Boston would go all the way and they did .. ;D But if one is a strong Christain none of this nonsense has any effect on us but rather I find it all very hilarious to say the least.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 3, 2011 10:22:46 GMT -5
Nonsense as in the imminent collapse of Western society, or nonsense as in hockey rivalries?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 3, 2011 10:53:29 GMT -5
"All 50 states. I guess you'll just have to deal with that." -------------------------------------------------- Not being of the legal profession I may be wrong here..but I always thought that rulings by the SCOTUS do set precident..and are not just aimed at the specific case before them..that local, that incident, but they take cases,
{remember they don't HAVE to hear every case that has worked their way up to them, in fact can agree to hear certain cases BEFORE they actually have worked their way up to them through the lower courts}
to set precident.
Thus in this case, I would think that the SCOTUS are saying, their ruling, no you cannot have the "Ten Commandants" large display, small display, displayed In "THE COURT ROOM"..possible also in the court house, though if a court room is in a public building, thinking small community, a court room in a small Town Hall..possible some where in that building it might be allowed..but to me it means not in the Court Room..all 50 states, precedent, having being ruled on.
Naturally, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 12:54:30 GMT -5
Nonsense as in the imminent collapse of Western society, or nonsense as in hockey rivalries? Hey there is NO nonsense in Hockey....Isn't it like your second religion in Oh Canada??? Hey!!!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 3, 2011 13:09:37 GMT -5
It's a major part of our culture, I suppose. But saying that every Canadian loves hockey is like saying every American loves baseball. The riots in Vancouver were a national embarrassment. It's unfortunate because Vancouver had finally picked up some international prestige after the Olympics. It took 80,000 volunteers, media officials, construction workers, planners, organizers, staff, and officials 4 years to pull that off. Then a group of just under a thousand drunk idiots tears it down in one night. My only consolation is that many of said idiots in photos or videos that made their way online were fired. And many more were turned in by disgusted friends and neighbours. A few of the instigators are facing major jail time.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 3, 2011 13:19:00 GMT -5
It's a major part of our culture, I suppose. But saying that every Canadian loves hockey is like saying every American loves baseball. The riots in Vancouver were a national embarrassment. It's unfortunate because Vancouver had finally picked up some international prestige after the Olympics. It took 80,000 volunteers, media officials, construction workers, planners, organizers, staff, and officials 4 years to pull that off. Then a group of just under a thousand drunk idiots tears it down in one night. My only consolation is that many of said idiots in photos or videos that made their way online were fired. And many more were turned in by disgusted friends and neighbours. A few of the instigators are facing major jail time. Hate to keep rubbing it in Virgil since I don't have Mr Burns to kick around anymore but Bostonians by the millions were all very peaceful and civil when the Bruins rode from the Garden to the Charles River on the infamous old WWII landing craft.. BTW at BC some of us got to skate with the Bruins after their practice session at McHugh Forum on the campus...a few would just skate after practice to get the soreness out of their bods and we got to know some of them quite well....they all said they wished they had the opportunity to go to BC since most began playing junior hockey in Canada after they graduated from high school..
|
|