Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-06-2003, 03:42 PM

Commandments on rock put Polk in public spotlight

Quote:

With an eye to an impending court battle, his group is calling the rock a historical monument, not a religious one. But he quickly banned anyone not Jewish or Christian from his committee, arguing that those were the only two religions present when the country was founded.

"If they want to go to India or Pakistan and put up their own rock, that's fine," he told a local newspaper.

. . .

Higher courts have generally found that stand-alone Ten Commandments displays are a violation of the First Amendment.

But when the Commandments are shown in a historical context, higher courts have generally found them acceptable, said Ira Lupu, who specializes in religion and the First Amendment at George Washington University Law School. As part of a historical display of great lawgivers in the U.S. Supreme Court, Moses is featured holding the Ten Commandments.

A team of lawyers with the Christian Law Association has advised Carter to use that strategy with the Polk monument. The traditional round-top stone tablets will be no larger than any other document, he said.

{emphasis added}

RufusAtticus · 01-06-2003, 05:59 PM

Trying to use a "strategy" to sneak around the first amendment doesn't work either. Creationists have found that out time and again.

Philosoft · 01-06-2003, 09:10 PM

Bah. Central Florida's getting jealous of the superior funditude found here in the Panhandle. First the lady mayor who banished Satan from her town, now this. They should learn they'll never compete with the Brownsville Revival. And we have more murdered abortion doctors per capita than any ten counties in any other state.

fromtheright · 01-06-2003, 09:34 PM

Strategy or not, Rufus, if it is correct that this has been found permissible as long as displayed in a historical context, why should this one not be permitted and what distinguishes this one from others that may have been allowed? What makes this an "establishment" if others have not been?

Gene/FTR

RufusAtticus · 01-06-2003, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright
Strategy or not, Rufus, if it is correct that this has been found permissible as long as displayed in a historical context, why should this one not be permitted and what distinguishes this one from others that may have been allowed? What makes this an "establishment" if others have not been?

If it is displayed for historical reasons it's fine But displaying it for religious reasons, surounding it with other documents and saying that you are doing it for historical reasons is not fine. A minister raising funds to put the ten commandments in the middle of a government building because "Part of our heritage is our Judeo-Christian background, and we are not going to exclude it," is different than an artist commissioned to paint a mural that depicts famous law-givers of history. It is very clear from his actions that this isn't a monument to legal history. It's a monument to the Ten Commandments. The only reason it has anything else on it is because he was advised by the Christian Law Association to include them as "a strategy" to prevent it from being declared unconstitutional. If this is supposed to be about history and not religion, why did he exclude anyone but Christians and Jews from being on the monument committee?

fromtheright · 01-06-2003, 10:19 PM

Points well taken, Rufus.

Gene/FTR

gravitybow · 01-07-2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

As part of a historical display of great lawgivers in the U.S. Supreme Court, Moses is featured holding the Ten Commandments...

...And Mohammed is featured holding the entire Koran. And neither Moses nor Mohammed stands apart from the crowd.

pdf file -- Moses and Ten C's on page 1, Mohammed and Koran on page 2

Butters · 01-07-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

. First the lady mayor who banished Satan from her town

Now that's the ticket! Why not just banish Satan from the entire country, and just be done with it?

Philosoft · 01-07-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butters
Now that's the ticket! Why not just banish Satan from the entire country, and just be done with it?

Considering, as a country, we've probably asked God to bless America several billion times in the last year and a quarter, we should have little to worry about.

Pee Pee Poodle · 01-08-2003, 08:13 AM

http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pic...amnAmerika.jpg

PeePee Poodle

{Questionable image removed and replaced with link by Toto at least until PPP responds and explains what his or her purpose is.}

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2003, 05:59 PM	#2
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Trying to use a "strategy" to sneak around the first amendment doesn't work either. Creationists have found that out time and again.

01-06-2003, 09:10 PM	#3
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Bah. Central Florida's getting jealous of the superior funditude found here in the Panhandle. First the lady mayor who banished Satan from her town, now this. They should learn they'll never compete with the Brownsville Revival. And we have more murdered abortion doctors per capita than any ten counties in any other state.

01-06-2003, 09:34 PM	#4
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Strategy or not, Rufus, if it is correct that this has been found permissible as long as displayed in a historical context, why should this one not be permitted and what distinguishes this one from others that may have been allowed? What makes this an "establishment" if others have not been? Gene/FTR

01-06-2003, 10:19 PM	#6
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Points well taken, Rufus. Gene/FTR

01-08-2003, 08:13 AM	#10
Pee Pee Poodle Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: USA Posts: 59	http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pic...amnAmerika.jpg PeePee Poodle {Questionable image removed and replaced with link by Toto at least until PPP responds and explains what his or her purpose is.}

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.