• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Ten Commandments Displays: Conflicts; Crimes; Etc.

A

Anonymous

Guest
Some extraordinary scenes in Alabama as the ruckus over the removal of the ten commandments from a courthouse has been a focal point for the Church/State separation debate. Consequently a display of "look how pious we are" has begun, a judge who refused to obey the court order to remove the statue has been suspended, and it's all over a lump of rock.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/25/ten.commandments.ap/index.html
 
A modest proposal

For a modest sum, one could have the stone recarved, replacing the Ten Commandments in English with the same, in the original Hebrew.

Then watch it miraculously be lifted up to God during the night, possibly by the very people fighting to keep it in place.

Better yet, I'd like to see the Ten Commandments replaced with a very choice verses of the Koran (Quiran). Seeing as there are only 7,000,000 Muslims in the United States, it could be centuries before THEY became numerous enough to attempt to impose Islamic Law and their religious beliefs on Americans.
 
All this pois stuff. Meby they should have 'Do what thou wilt...'

Cathalin Turner was once in the Bible belt and was asked to submit a quote for the town (to be hung somewhere or other for a week) and she chose 'Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.'

She wasn't populer as a result.

:D
 
The judge seems to be under the impression that the laws of the US are based on the Ten Commandments. :rolleyes: IIRC don't most gov'ts (this one included) base their laws on Hamurabe's Code? There is also a belief that this country was founded by persecuted Xtians, therefore it is a Xtian country. (Apparently the founders were just kidding about the bit about freedom of religion.)
 
Midnight said:
The judge seems to be under the impression that the laws of the US are based on the Ten Commandments. :rolleyes: IIRC don't most gov'ts (this one included) base their laws on Hamurabe's Code? There is also a belief that this country was founded by persecuted Xtians, therefore it is a Xtian country. (Apparently the founders were just kidding about the bit about freedom of religion.)
Click to expand...

A fine christian country it is too with more young black men in prision than in further education:hmph:
 
The 10 commandments are not the basis for US law, but that fact would be made much clearer if the Judges didn't require you to swear truthfulness with your hand on a bible.

At least having the big rock outside clues people into what really goes on inside.
 
Matthew said:
The 10 commandments are not the basis for US law, but that fact would be made much clearer if the Judges didn't require you to swear truthfulness with your hand on a bible.

At least having the big rock outside clues people into what really goes on inside.
Click to expand...

I sence a certain biterness in your tone :)
 
Matthew said:
The 10 commandments are not the basis for US law, but that fact would be made much clearer if the Judges didn't require you to swear truthfulness with your hand on a bible.

At least having the big rock outside clues people into what really goes on inside.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I wonder when the gov't is going to wake up to the fact that there is a very real non-Xtian population in this country, and swearing on the bible means no more to us than swearing on a book of ancient mythology.
 
Midnight said:
Exactly. I wonder when the gov't is going to wake up to the fact that there is a very real non-Xtian population in this country, and swearing on the bible means no more to us than swearing on a book of ancient mythology.
Click to expand...

what would you sugest as a good alternitive? You could use the constitution but the goverment dosn't seem to value that these days :hmph:
 
The Virgin Queen said:
what would you sugest as a good alternitive? You could use the constitution but the goverment dosn't seem to value that these days :hmph:
Click to expand...

Swearing on their own personal totem for example, a combination of their gun licence TV-guide and atkins diet book, or perhaps in some cases on a copy of their corporate mission statement

"I swear, by almighty Xerox, that the evidence I shall give shall be quality guaranteed to be the..."

Its all a bit of a moot point, because if you commit a crime and are caught, your gonna lie to get off, doesn't matter what you swear on :confused:
 
Swearing on the Holy Bible is doubly ironic, in the sense that the Bible itself states quite clearly that one should not swear on the Bible, or indeed on anything else.
According to the Bible, Jesus states, and I quote "Do not swear at all, not by heaven, because it is God's throne, nor by the earth, because it is His footstool, nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. Neither swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your word Yes be Yes and your No, No. Anything beyond this is from the evil one. (Matt.5, 34-37, my emphasis).
Hypocrites, who want to keep the Ten Commandments, but welcome Satan into the courtroom every time they have a trial! :devil:

Big Bill Robinson
 
Swearing on Bible

Actually, I believe that some courts, if not all, allow you to swear on a selection of texts, including the Bible, the Koran (Quiran), etc. I'll just do a quick check and see if I can confirm this.

Actually, the NOT swearing at all thing kept Quakers and many other sects out of political office and in hot water with the authorities in Britain and her colonies for quite a number of generations.

I think that atheists and others can swear a special without the Bible or anything. Any way, it is an anachronism and an absurdity to swear an oath on any thing: when did this ever stop anybody but the simple minded or the truly scrupelous?

It's as dumb as believing that anybody prepared to swear that they aren't a Communist isn't a Communist instructed by the Party to swear they aren't a Communist if challenged.
 
In most jurisdictions, certainly in England and Australia, you have the option of affirming, which is the practice of swearing an oath without religious significance. The witness is then under oath, and is compelled by law to tell the truth. Also, there is the option of swearing on a number of other religious texts, to accommodate other faiths. I expect that most US courts have the same options. (Although, this would probably depend on the district.)

I remember watching Robertson's play of the Oz Trial in which one of the contentious issues was the judge's insinuation that Marty Feldman's testimony was untrustworthy as he had affirmed, rather than sworn on the Bible.

The problem is that there are politicians and elected officials, in the US as well as the UK, Australia, and various other countries, who think that the seperation of church and state is a mistake. They don't necessarily represent a majority view (then again, I haven't checked any figures on it), but they do manage to get elected.

This is not an "Only in America" story, similar things happen here, and elsewhere all the time. They don't get the same attention, however.
 
Back again with more on swearing on Bibles

This page (from a "Separation of Church and State" website with link) on the subject of Presidential oaths make it clear that swearing on the Bible is not required of the President of the United States or other high officials:

Swearing on the Bible
 
Re: Back again with more on swearing on Bibles

littleblackduck said:
This page (from a "Separation of Church and State" website with link) on the subject of Presidential oaths make it clear that swearing on the Bible is not required of the President of the United States or other high officials:

Swearing on the Bible
Click to expand...
Which will come in handy if they ever elect a non-Christian president.

Then again, we have had numerous non-Christian (ie atheist) PMs, and they have all attended church services, and taken part in other religious trappings still attached to parliament. And all the republican ministers who have to swear allegiance to the Queen.
 
anome said:
In most jurisdictions, certainly in England and Australia, you have the option of affirming, which is the practice of swearing an oath without religious significance. The witness is then under oath, and is compelled by law to tell the truth. Also, there is the option of swearing on a number of other religious texts, to accommodate other faiths.
Click to expand...
A friend of mine who didn't want to swear on any holy book, swore on herself. The bible certainly isn't an essential part of the procedure. I'm sure most people do it just because they haven't thought not to.
 
The 5,000 lb monument has allegedly just been wheeled from the rotunda 'to be displayed elsewhere'.:rolleyes:
 
Midnight said:
The 5,000 lb monument has allegedly just been wheeled from the rotunda 'to be displayed elsewhere'.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

in the toilat that's where you usualy put the enbarising stuff you cant throw out for whatever reason.
 
I don't care where they put it as long as it's not in a gov't building.
They can stick it in front of a church in plain sight of the public, that's their perogative. I resent the implication that in the court room I would be judged by the Xtian god when I'm not a Xtian.
 
Oh, I don't know, how 'bout a deal everyone can hate? Keep the Ten Commandments in the Rotunda, and in every one of the churches where the protesters are from (I'm guessing Southern Baptist or Assembly of God) forcibly install a large granite Bill of Rights monument.:)
 
lopaka said:
Oh, I don't know, how 'bout a deal everyone can hate? Keep the Ten Commandments in the Rotunda, and in every one of the churches where the protesters are from (I'm guessing Southern Baptist or Assembly of God) forcibly install a large granite Bill of Rights monument.:)
Click to expand...

in the words of the character from Dad's Army: 'they don't like it up them!'
 
The Virgin Queen said:
in the toilat that's where you usualy put the enbarising stuff you cant throw out for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
I Second the Motion! They could bung it under a giant one of those crocheted toilet roll covers, y'know -the ones that look like deformed poodles... :D
 
Zygon said:
I Second the Motion! They could bung it under a giant one of those crocheted toilet roll covers, y'know -the ones that look like deformed poodles... :D
Click to expand...

Could we have one of the Flamenco dancers insted? Thay've always been my favorats.
 
The Virgin Queen said:
Could we have one of the Flamenco dancers insted? Thay've always been my favorats.
Click to expand...
So long as I don't have to look at it, you can any design you want. :D
 
OK, I live in Alabama so I guess I might as well check in on this subject. Judge Roy Moore is a crazy, self-serving idiot who is only doing this to promote his own "career". Many think his next move is to run for governor of the state. This 10 commandments issue has been his gimmick for years. He was an unknown judge in a north Alabama county several years ago until he put up a plaque of the 10 commandments in his courtroom. The ACLU found out and sued, and he rode that to get elected State Supreme Court Justice. He has tricked the extreme right-wing religious fundamentalists in the state into thinking that he is some messiah sent to make sure God isn't taken out of the government and law etc, etc. blah blah blah.
Anyway, I wish I could have hooked a chain to the damn monument and dragged it out myself. Of course I would have been arrested or attacked and killed by the mob of "Christians" outside the court building (many who are not even from the state of Alabama, but are apparently taking their summer vacations in Montgomery so they can protest).
My position is, you can do whatever you want in your own church or home. Build a 500 ton monument of whatever you want, I don't care. Do not, however, force one religion or interpretation of religious faith on people through the state or federal government.
By the way, if Moore is ever elected governor of Alabama, I will be moving to another state. Even though I was born in Alabama and have lived here all my life, I can't stand to think of what it would be like to live with him as governor.

sureshot
 
The Virgin Queen said:
in the words of the character from Dad's Army: 'they don't like it up them!'
Click to expand...
Perhaps there might be a terrible accident, as happened when the Holy Stone of Clon Ricket was being upgraded from a grade 3 relic to a grade 2 relic. ;) :)
 
What can I say? God only knows that's going on in this guy's head:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141541,00.html

Judge's Robe Bears Ten Commandments
Tuesday, December 14, 2004

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- A judge refused to delay a trial Tuesday when an
attorney objected to his wearing a judicial robe with the Ten Commandments embroidered on the front in gold.

Circuit Judge Ashley McKathan showed up Monday at his Covington County courtroom in southern Alabama wearing the robe. Attorneys who try cases atthe courthouse said they had not seen him wearing it before. The commandments were described as being big enough to read by anyone near the judge.

Attorney Riley Powell, defending a client charged with DUI, filed a motion
objecting to the robe and asking that the case be continued. He said
McKathan denied both motions.

"I feel this creates a distraction that affects my client," Powell said.
McKathan told The Associated Press that he believes the Ten Commandments represent the truth "and you can't divorce the law from the truth. ...

The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong."
He said he doesn't believe the commandments on his robe would have an adverse effect on jurors.
 
I was expecting to see this as another example of the Neo-cons and their hyjacking of religion for their own ends but...it seems more like mental illnes on the part of the judge to me.

There's no mensoin of the judge's age but it could posibly be
symptimatic of Pic's desiese wich is a form of dementia wich in it's early stage has the individual displaying disinhibited behaviour and having no ability to see the repocusions of it or how it effects others.

but then he might just be a right wing nutter...
 
This Montana man was tried for pulling down a Ten Commandments monument on public property. That much is clear ... His history and his rationale for this act are much less clear.
Man found guilty of vandalizing Ten Commandments monument

A man accused of vandalizing a Ten Commandments monument at the Flathead County Courthouse in Kalispell earlier this summer was found guilty Monday in Flathead County District Court.

Anthony Craig Weimer, 30, of Kalispell, was found guilty of felony criminal mischief by District Judge Amy Eddy after the one-day bench trial. ...

Weimer said his reasoning for pulling the monument from its location was that he wanted it in front of the courthouse.

“It represents law and to me it’s hidden,” he said. “I also believe the government placing the Ten Commandments on its property is offensive to God.” ...

He also said he believed the monument to be public property and he believes each citizen has the potential to own the monument.

According to court documents, the Ten Commandments monument was a gift from the Kalispell Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie 234 in June 1950. In 1968, it was placed on county land near the front door of the old courthouse.

In 2004, after some community members opposed the location of the monument, the county commissioners approved moving it to a different location on county property near the County Attorney’s office and the overflow jail.

Other smaller granite monuments that flank the Ten Commandments monument and weren’t damaged include the Montana Constitution, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta and Mayflower Compact.

Weimer also said his dissatisfaction with the result of a lawsuit he filed in 2018 was another reason for his actions.

Weimer sued Google, Microsoft, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Communication Commission because he said they allowed him access to internet pornography websites before he was 18 years of age. He said he was nearly entrapped by federal officers because of his access to the material on a wireless device. Weimer also claimed he sustained physical injury, including genital mutilation and maiming, as well as spiritual lostness, morals and the near loss of life. The suit was dismissed, but Weimer appealed. ...
Click to expand...

FULL STORY: https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2020/nov/24/man-found-guilty-vandalizing-ten-commandments-monu/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top