Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on July 03, 2015, 09:59:41 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a news item about a court in Oklahoma asking the state to remove the Ten Commandments inscribed on a monument at the capitol.
http://us.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/oklahoma-supreme-court-orders-removal/index.html
*******************************************************************************
After the Supreme Court's week of high-profile decisions, Oklahoma's high court made a stir of its own in a ruling that had a group of self-proclaimed Satanists and an ordained Baptist minister celebrating.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the state must remove a 6-foot tall granite monument of the Ten Commandments from its capitol because it violates the state's constitutional ban against the use of public funds or property to benefit a religion.
The decision came after years of controversy and legal battles. The monument's supporters include prominent figures in the state, including Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and members of the state's legislature.
********************************************************************************
What do you think?
Sriram
-
Since the only other alternative would have been to allow similar monuments to all other religions, it seems the most sensible decision.
-
As far as I understand it this (the presence of such an item, I mean) is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, so according to the terms of the Constitution it has to go.
-
The legal decision is correct. Are there more important things that could be done than fighting this case, undoubtedly yes, for both sides. Arguably there is a principle that needs to be stood up for here that will have a significant role in ensuring freedom of and from religion but I have never been able to get that excited by it, given that the entwining of religion, capitalism and the state is currently written on the money in the US.
-
Curious that such things keep happening in a de jure secular state such as the USA ...
-
Curious that such things keep happening in a de jure secular state such as the USA ...
... whose banknotes state "In God we trust" ...
(as NS has already pointed out :) )
-
Indeed >:(
-
The Yanks are a strange mixture of sense and nonsense ... although in truth, we still have a lot of nonsensical people here! :)
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a news item about a court in Oklahoma asking the state to remove the Ten Commandments inscribed on a monument at the capitol.
http://us.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/oklahoma-supreme-court-orders-removal/index.html
*******************************************************************************
After the Supreme Court's week of high-profile decisions, Oklahoma's high court made a stir of its own in a ruling that had a group of self-proclaimed Satanists and an ordained Baptist minister celebrating.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the state must remove a 6-foot tall granite monument of the Ten Commandments from its capitol because it violates the state's constitutional ban against the use of public funds or property to benefit a religion.
The decision came after years of controversy and legal battles. The monument's supporters include prominent figures in the state, including Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and members of the state's legislature.
********************************************************************************
What do you think?
Sriram
It reminds me of an Ostrich burying it's head in the sand thinking the enemy cannot see him because he can no longer see his enemy.
Why does God and the laws bother men so much that a 6ft granite stone with the 10 commandments written on them need to be removed?
If, they believe God does not exist then why the bothersome need to remove anything relating to God?
The falling away and the end does not change. God is still their and the earth and man will come to the final judgement still.
But sometimes I wonder if man really understands how if a Kingdom divides and turns on itself it will fall.
Does Satan really believe he can change the final outcome?
Does man believe he can live without God?
Or is the truth the fact that Satan knows he cannot change the final outcome but will lead as many with him as he can?
-
Surely the point is why would Christians need a six foot Ten Commandments when it is breaking the law?
-
Why does God and the laws bother men so much that a 6ft granite stone with the 10 commandments written on them need to be removed?
Because it breaks the law by violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
If, they believe God does not exist then why the bothersome need to remove anything relating to God?
See previous answer.
Or is the truth the fact that Satan knows he cannot change the final outcome but will lead as many with him as he can?
That's not a fact but a belief.
-
Why does God and the laws bother men so much that a 6ft granite stone with the 10 commandments written on them need to be removed?
As others have pointed out the issue here is the US constitution.
While it may seem pointless to you if it is unconstitutional there is a need to ensure that the constitution is enforced. If one unconstitutional act is simply ignored the state others acting in an unconstitutional manner may cry 'double standards' if their breach is punished.
And the US and its people are very hot on their constitution, so it isn't unexpected that breaches of the constitution are dealt with whether or not you think the issue is trivial.
-
As far as I understand it this (the presence of such an item, I mean) is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, so according to the terms of the Constitution it has to go.
I thought that the Establishment Clause only referred to Christianity; surely the 10 Commandments are primarily something relating to Judaism. Can see the Jewish element of the US population having a hissy fit ;)
-
Surely the point is why would Christians need a six foot Ten Commandments when it is breaking the law?
Who says it's the Christians who need a six foot 10 Commandments?
-
I thought that the Establishment Clause only referred to Christianity
No. All religions; any religion; every religion; religion generally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
-
The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another; which tends to allow for a greater harmony amongst all of the many denominations in the United States.[citation needed] While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, still it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause)
I like the comment preceding the 'citation needed' comment - "The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another; which tends to allow for a greater harmony amongst all of the many denominations in the United States". As those who have any knowledge of language will be aware, the term 'denomonations' in this context refers to groupings within a given religion. When the Clause was written in the 18th century, I suspect that Christianity and its denominational groupings was what was referred to. If this is the purpose of the constitution, has there actually been a legal challenge to the clause in order to widen that purpose?
At the same time, does having a 6-foot column inscribed with the 10 Commandments in a location such as this actually establish any particular religion?
-
When the Clause was written in the 18th century, I suspect that Christianity and its denominational groupings was what was referred to.
The framers of the Constitution didn't write 'Christianity'; they wrote 'religion,' of which Christianity is but one of many.
At the same time, does having a 6-foot column inscribed with the 10 Commandments in a location such as this actually establish any particular religion?
Not one but two, I should think - I guess that constitutional lawyers would argue that it privileges Judaism and Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Satanism ... in fact every religion which is not Judaism or Christianity.
-
Not one but two, I should think - I guess that constitutional lawyers would argue that it privileges Judaism and Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Satanism ... in fact every religion which is not Judaism or Christianity.
So, in terms of the Establishment Clause, the column isn't privileging one religion over another - which, as I understand it - is the pertinent point.
Please note that I'm not overly bothered either way, but from I understand, the US Constitution is often its own worst enemy, because it's phrasing is often so specific.
-
Not one but two, I should think - I guess that constitutional lawyers would argue that it privileges Judaism and Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Satanism ... in fact every religion which is not Judaism or Christianity.
So, in terms of the Establishment Clause, the column isn't privileging one religion over another - which, as I understand it - is the pertinent point.
No. The pertinent point is that all religions are deemed to occupy the same level playing field where none of them in any number or combination can be privileged above the rest of them. That's secularism in a nutshell.
-
No. The pertinent point is that all religions are deemed to occupy the same level playing field where none of them in any number or combination can be privileged above the rest of them. That's secularism in a nutshell.
So, having such a display doesn't break the law; its the not having other religions' equivalent alongside that does this?
-
No. The pertinent point is that all religions are deemed to occupy the same level playing field where none of them in any number or combination can be privileged above the rest of them. That's secularism in a nutshell.
So, having such a display doesn't break the law; its the not having other religions' equivalent alongside that does this?
I suppose a constitutional lawyer could argue along such lines - it's either all religions without exception or none, and it's easier and simpler if it's none.
-
... and it's easier and simpler if it's none.
So, you're suggesting that absolutely nothing should be displayed anywhere in any government building, so that no belief system is represented?
-
... and it's easier and simpler if it's none.
So, you're suggesting that absolutely nothing should be displayed anywhere in any government building, so that no belief system is represented?
I don't know what the colonials say but that seems to be the general opinion. The Establishment and Free Exercise clauses allow for, say, Muslims and Satanists to put up monuments of their own and predictably that has a very great many septics squawking and whining (because Christianity alone is the one right and true religion, obviously), so none rather than all seems to be the order of the day.
-
... and it's easier and simpler if it's none.
So, you're suggesting that absolutely nothing should be displayed anywhere in any government building, so that no belief system is represented?
What a wonderful, progressive idea. Thank you, Hope, for suggesting it.
-
What a wonderful, progressive idea. Thank you, Hope, for suggesting it.
It woud be good, wouldn't it, HH. No notices on the walls, no instructions, no nothing. Remember too, that its not only written material - it's spoken/heard as well.
-
It woud be good, wouldn't it, HH. No notices on the walls, no instructions, no nothing.
'Ladies,' 'Gents,' 'Library this way' and 'No smoking' don't count as the endorsement of religious belief systems. I'm pretty sure we're OK with notices of the kind I've just mentioned.
-
And I could spend all day coveting my neighbour's ass without feeling guilty. 8)
-
We've pretty much arrived there in the UK, haven't we? I haven't noticed in government or municipal offices, any testaments of belief, God is great, salutation to the illustrious Ganesh, etc.
-
We've pretty much arrived there in the UK, haven't we? I haven't noticed in government or municipal offices, any testaments of belief, God is great, salutation to the illustrious Ganesh, etc.
It's one of the peculiar differences between a de jure secular state and a de jure religious one, wiggles.
-
Yes, good point. In the US it is positively illegal, I think. Ditto France?
I remember Obama going to a school prize-giving, and every religious symbol had to be covered up, as the Pres. is Pres. of a secular state, not founded upon the Christian (or any other) religion.
-
Hope exactly which part of equal for all citizens is it that you don't like?
This law applies to all religions equally and don't think "In god" we trust printed on their dollar isn't contested, it does in fact contravene their secular legislation.
I can understand if you don't like the secular part of US legislation although of course I wouldn't agree with you but I don't understand why do you pretend that you don't understand the US secular legislation?
ippy
-
We've pretty much arrived there in the UK, haven't we? I haven't noticed in government or municipal offices, any testaments of belief, God is great, salutation to the illustrious Ganesh, etc.
Have we 'pretty much arrived'? Can you think of any historical sites where such testaments exist(ed), other than in sites that were primarily religious?
Hope exactly which part of equal for all citizens is it that you don't like?
Nothing. What I dislike is the things that are sold as 'secularism', but plainly aren't.
I can understand if you don't like the secular part of US legislation although of course I wouldn't agree with you but I don't understand why do you pretend that you don't understand the US secular legislation?
I'm don't so much dislike the 'secular parts of US legislation' (or anywhere's for that matter); rather, like many, I dislike those parts of legislation that I believe to be detrimental to humanity and society as a whole. Some of these elements could be described as 'secular'; some of them as 'religious'.
-
What I dislike is the things that are sold as 'secularism', but plainly aren't.
Which are ... ?
I dislike those parts of legislation that I believe to be detrimental to humanity and society as a whole. Some of these elements could be described as 'secular'; some of them as 'religious'.
Examples of each?
-
Yes, good point. In the US it is positively illegal, I think. Ditto France?
I remember Obama going to a school prize-giving, and every religious symbol had to be covered up, as the Pres. is Pres. of a secular state, not founded upon the Christian (or any other) religion.
I have stated this on this forum before. I own a very small property in deepest France.
In my commune are three churches which have been restored and maintained by the commune which also owns them. They are honoured as historic buildings.
The one in my village is used by both Catholics and Anglicans for services and funerals and wedding ceremonies. (The marriage legally takes place in a civil ceremony conducted by the maire. It may or may not be followed by a religious ceremony which has no legal significance.)
I know of many churches that are owned by municipalities. They are then available for religious purposes on request. Such is the nature of secularism.
-
I remember Obama going to a school prize-giving, and every religious symbol had to be covered up, as the Pres. is Pres. of a secular state, not founded upon the Christian (or any other) religion.
I think it more likely that, if it was a public school, such symbols were strictly illegal. The president's presence was not a relevent factor. They should not have been there anyway.
Does it not strike you as paradoxical that the inauguration of a new president in the USA is a religious event? The new president swears an oath on the bible that he will uphold the constitution. Except G W Bush, of course, who swore an oath on the constitution that he would uphold the bible ....
-
That's a lie. Have a cookie Harrow because a monkey on a rock can tell better lies than you. Funny lies that is.
-
That's a lie. Have a cookie Harrow because a monkey on a rock can tell better lies than you. Funny lies that is.
What is a lie? Do you habitually go around calling people liars?
Could you defend yourself if I decided to make an issue of it?
-
TBH I don't want Christianity associated with Oklahoma's legislature.
-
TBH I don't want Christianity associated with Oklahoma's legislature.
-
Wot HWB said.
-
I know of many churches that are owned by municipalities. They are then available for religious purposes on request. Such is the nature of secularism.
Were those church buildings either built by the municipality, or bought off their original owners at a valid market price? Or where they simply 'taken over'.
-
What I dislike is the things that are sold as 'secularism', but plainly aren't.
Which are ... ?
As I've mentioned before, some years ago Cardiff Council decided against Christmas Festivities and chose instead to run a Winter Festival that started with Ramadan (starting in mid-November that year) and concluded after the Chinese New Year. Initially there were no complaints, until someone asked the question of why they had done this (the extended event cost two or three times that of the average 'Christmas' event). In reality the 'Christmas' event had a large number of events and attractions that had nothing to do with Christmas per se - a public outdoor ice rink; a German bierkeller; various specialist shops housed in small huts in public spaces in the centre of Cardiff; etc. In response to the question, a council spokesman said that they had decided to have a secular event in response to concerns expressed by Muslim community leaders the previous year. When Muslim community leaders asked which concerns these had been, the council was unable to provide a response (not least because the Muslim community had expressed no such concerns; in fact they liked to see Christmas celebrated, in the way that they liked to see Eid and Ramadan celebrated). Ironically, the extended event had fairly few different events and attractions to usual.
I dislike those parts of legislation that I believe to be detrimental to humanity and society as a whole. Some of these elements could be described as 'secular'; some of them as 'religious'.
Examples of each?
Some of the Welfare rules introduced by the last Government, especially those concerning the disabled.
The requirement that the Prime Minister of the day chooses, or at worst has to OK the Church Commissioners' choice of new Archbishop of Canterbury.
Whoops, missed out a {quote} marker
-
I know of many churches that are owned by municipalities. They are then available for religious purposes on request. Such is the nature of secularism.
Were those church buildings either built by the municipality, or bought off their original owners at a valid market price? Or where they simply 'taken over'.
So your agenda is to imply that they were obtained by some underhand means? Anything to undermine "secularism"?
Buildings hundreds of years old are not the property of some incorporated business, they "belong" to the community.
In many cases they were abandoned by ecclesiastical authorities because they were not prepared to maintain them.
-
Secularism should mean equal respect for all religions. Not equal disrespect for all religions. Secularism should not be about rejecting religion but about accepting all religions as equally valid.
-
Surely the point is why would Christians need a six foot Ten Commandments when it is breaking the law?
The bible shows why in any age since Christ the "Christian" does not need a six foot granite block with the Ten Commandment engraved on it.
The New Covenant was not to be like the old. No outward reminder is necessary...
Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Jeremiah 31:31-34King James Version (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Highlighted in red and bold you see two things clearly....
The New Covenant is not like the old. Gods New Covenant is written within the man.... That is why the Holy Spirit now teaches every individual and the power is within.
-
Why does God and the laws bother men so much that a 6ft granite stone with the 10 commandments written on them need to be removed?
Because it breaks the law by violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Because man made a law after it was erected which made what they previously did illegal... But should it not be excluded if it already existed before the law as it is an historical monument them?
If, they believe God does not exist then why the bothersome need to remove anything relating to God?
See previous answer.
God existing is against the breaks the law by violating the Establishment clause of the constitution? Are they really that thick and stupid....
Or is the truth the fact that Satan knows he cannot change the final outcome but will lead as many with him as he can?
That's not a fact but a belief.
The Christians are not the ones making up laws and Establishment clauses which makes God or the ten commandments they originally erected illegal...
I wonder if church signs outside churches will be next of pub signs like the Church Inn... Really pathetic isn't it...
-
It was only erected 2012 and four residents objected...
"Quite simply, the Oklahoma Supreme Court got it wrong. The court completely ignored the profound historical impact of the Ten Commandments on the foundation of Western law. Furthermore, the court's incorrect interpretation of Article 2, Section 5 contradicts previous rulings of the court," he said.
Pruitt said his office will file a petition with the court for a rehearing in light of the broader implications of the ruling on other areas of state law.
"In the interim, enforcement of the court's order cannot occur. Finally, if Article 2, Section 5, is going to be construed in such a manner by the court, it will be necessary to repeal it," he said.
-
TBH I don't want Christianity associated with Oklahoma's legislature.
Are you a Christian? Do you live in Oklahoma?
Well what has it to do with you anyway or what you want.
Immaterial....
-
With respect, Sass:
Have you delved into some of the views expressed by 'bible belters'?
They are about as far from the Gospel as I think it's possible to get.
Some wear croosses, quote the KJV like dyspeptic parrots....and blithely ignore much of the NT...and several of the Ten Commandments in the OT as well.
And I DO know several Christians of several denominations who hailed from Oklahoma....before you ask.
-
So your agenda is to imply that they were obtained by some underhand means? Anything to undermine "secularism"?
No, simply asking the question.
Buildings hundreds of years old are not the property of some incorporated business, they "belong" to the community.
In many cases they were abandoned by ecclesiastical authorities because they were not prepared to maintain them.
Not sure that "Buildings hundreds of years old are not the property of some incorporated business, they "belong" to the community". For instance, our church celebrates 150 years this year and the building 148 years. It does not belong to the community; it belongs to its members.
If, however, the buildings were abandoned by the ecclesiastical authorities as too expensive to maintain that is another matter. One has to ask why they were abandoned. Were they too expensive to maintain. Had the membership dropped so far as to make them obsolete? Were they so old that to bring them up to a safe standard would have been a bad use of finance? Were they so unfit for purpose that it would be better stewardship of money to vacate/sell the property and build a more modern building - after all, a church congregation is a community in itself?
I can think of plenty of British congregations that are not permitted to improve their places of worship because at some point in the past, a heritage listing has been placed on a physical building when the people are the church. I can remember one friend saying that they couldn't even sell their building and set up elsewhere in the vicinity because of some age-old local by-law .
-
With respect, Sass:
Have you delved into some of the views expressed by 'bible belters'?
They are about as far from the Gospel as I think it's possible to get.
Some wear croosses, quote the KJV like dyspeptic parrots....and blithely ignore much of the NT...and several of the Ten Commandments in the OT as well.
And I DO know several Christians of several denominations who hailed from Oklahoma....before you ask.
Don't you know or understand your own Lords words who you claim to know?
Matthew 16:18King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
King James Bible
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Gods Kingdom are those who obey the commandments to love God and their neighbour who are born of the Spirit and Truth.
How does Gods commandments connect what you have written?
The Words of God will stand in the hearts and minds of those men women who know God who are baptised in the Spirit.
We do not need to judge the world, Christ will do that when the time comes...
-
TBH I don't want Christianity associated with Oklahoma's legislature.
Are you a Christian? Do you live in Oklahoma?
Well what has it to do with you anyway or what you want.
Immaterial....
1. Yes
2. I have lived in Texas, rather closer to Oklahoma than many here have lived
3. Why are you copying Shaker's argument?
4. :)
-
With respect, Sass:
Have you delved into some of the views expressed by 'bible belters'?
They are about as far from the Gospel as I think it's possible to get.
Some wear croosses, quote the KJV like dyspeptic parrots....and blithely ignore much of the NT...and several of the Ten Commandments in the OT as well.
And I DO know several Christians of several denominations who hailed from Oklahoma....before you ask.
Don't you know or understand your own Lords words who you claim to know?
Matthew 16:18King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
King James Bible
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Gods Kingdom are those who obey the commandments to love God and their neighbour who are born of the Spirit and Truth.
How does Gods commandments connect what you have written?
The Words of God will stand in the hearts and minds of those men women who know God who are baptised in the Spirit.
We do not need to judge the world, Christ will do that when the time comes...
-
See wot I mean about quoting the KJV like dyspeptic parrots?
-
given that the entwining of religion, capitalism and the state is currently written on the money in the US.
I can't believe that the "In God We Trust" motto is not unconstitutional.
-
What a wonderful, progressive idea. Thank you, Hope, for suggesting it.
It woud be good, wouldn't it, HH. No notices on the walls, no instructions, no nothing. Remember too, that its not only written material - it's spoken/heard as well.
Are you trying to pretend that (say) instructions to get to the Fire Exits are a religion? The US Constitution is perfectly happy with many belief systems, it's only religion it has a downer on, possibly because religion was perceived to be a significant problem for governance in the eyes of the Founding Fathers.
-
Secularism should mean equal respect for all religions. Not equal disrespect for all religions.
Why not?
Secularism should not be about rejecting religion but about accepting all religions as equally valid.
Good luck with that, especially with monotheists.
-
Hello Harrow,
Yes you did. And I'm talking about your stunted lie about Bush. Just calling a spade a spade here Harrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ2SuQwZWt8
http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/swearing-in/event/george-w-bush-2005