It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OK Supreme Court: Ten Commandments Monument Must Be Removed From Capitol

page: 25
9
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: grandmakdw


There are no more legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage.



visitation rights, property rights, child custody, inheritance, estate, pensions, workplace healthcare benefits, social security and dozens of other legal differentiators that are afforded a spouse vs. some person you just live with..

If religious zealots want to stop being legally married because some gay couple they have never met got married...they are welcome to..I kinda wish they would so that they might better understand the struggles that gay couples have faced not being able to legally marry..


a marriage contract that doesn't involve government permission to marry
will offer all the same benefits you mention above

.


You are floating the failed idea that Miss and Alabama have been trying in order to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling that specified States had to issue "Marriage Licenses" to same sex couples. They proposed the "contract solution" complete with inherent forbiddance of authorizing same sex couples to enter into that "contract"...

Apart from that..Contracts are still validated and enforced by government in the courts and are more complex than marriages with contract law and associated legal complexities and vulnerabilities. It is still by government, enforced by government...more expensive and complex than a marriage license etc.It in now way is simpler and it certainly doesn't remove government from marriage...it devolves the legal status of marriage to a much more complex legal document and agreement enforced and executed by government.

Here is the monster of a new law Alabama tried to pass stipulating a GOVERNMENT marriage contract...vs...just issuing a marriage license.
legiscan.com...


The SCOTUS ruling invalidated - nullified - did away with - eliminated
any part of any state constitution
or any law by any state
or an regulation by any state
that would forbid gays from getting married.
That was what the SCOTUS ruling was all about.

What the contract does that has so many in an uproar
is make a ceremony to validate the marriage optional.
It takes away the requirement for a ceremony,
which could be done in the courthouse quietly,
or with a huge affair.
So no one could force a church to validate
their marriage through a contract.
Yes, it was done to protect churches from lawsuits
because since a ceremony is no longer required by
law and is totally and completely optional, one
can not sue a church for not completing the licensure process.

By the way, I don't give a rats a.. if someone is gay. It's fine with me if they want to marry.

I don't agree with forcing people to do things against their will and religious convictions by threat of lawsuit.
Society is changing and moving toward acceptance and radical hateful lawsuits that frighten people into
doing things only creates and underlying and seething hatred, it does not improve anyone's outlook or improve
relations or change personal ideas - it simply sends them seething into an underground resentment.

Again, gay, I don't care, want to marry, fine do it,
just don't terrorize people whilst doing it because they don't agree with your lifestyle. That creates more problems than it solves.

P.S. Mod, I know I'm off topic, but you have allowed this within the thread, so I'm going with it.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I do know why the government first got involved,
and it is an excellent reason to support
the government to become involved.

There are no more legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage.



Wait. Did you just say that it was a GOOD thing for the government to become involved with marriage so that interracial marriages would be banned?

I'm really hoping I'm misreading what you typed here.

PS: There never WERE any legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage. Period. That should have been your answer.


No I am saying that because of the history of how the government first became involved in marriage:
the ugly history:
that doing away with the ugly history
and undoing government being involved in marriage
partly because of the ugly and awful reason they became involved in it
is a good thing.


Phew... I'm glad I asked before flying off the handle then.


The marriage contract, you seem to not understand.
Will afford the people who sign it all the rights and privileges of those with a license.
People will still have to go to court to "invalidate" (divorce) the contract.
All the rights and privileges and the messy divorce procedures will remain in place
with the marriage contract.


Sounds like it is pretty much the same thing to me. Government is still involved in marriage.


No one is denied anything with the contract,
the only one being denied is the government,
and the requirement of some sort of ceremony to validate the license.


No one is being denied anything with the way things are now either.


That is what has many LGBT upset,
the lack of a requirement for a ceremony,
for without that requirement,
they can't sue churches for not doing a ceremony,
since the ceremony won't be required to validate the marriage.


No it isn't. It is quite clearly being used as an end around because the religious right lost the argument federally. So now they are taking the ball and trying to go home with it. It's clearly the actions of a sore loser. This is obvious to everyone else, but you can pretend like it is something else. Cognitive dissonance gets many through their lives with no issue.

By the way, gays would still be able to have a ceremony even with your solution. There are plenty of churches out there that are willing to marry gay people. So that's CLEARLY not the reason gays are upset with this.
edit on 2-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Yep. Satanists are always a good go-to card to pull to expose Christian hypocrisy. I'm sure that's why they like trolling Christians on the regular. They probably couldn't care less about having a Satanist statue there.
edit on 2-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: grandmakdw

The problem I have with your "solution" is that it is one thought up and now being thrown around after the SCOTUS decided to extend marriage to homosexuals.

The government should stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of government. This is why the 10 Commandments ought to be removed from the government property.

Marriage is NOT exclusive to religion, plenty of pagan cultures prior to Christianity had institutions of marriage. I keep hammering at this point. Christians do not own marriage. No one does. It's not exclusive to religion. There.

The 10 Commandments should be removed from any government building. Governments should operate agnostically without acknowledging any religion. As I've said many times, favoring one religious group (in this case Christians) by placing the 10 Commandments violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution TWICE.

It violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by allowing a Christian religious artifact to be placed on government property, making it 'legal' to present it. This establishes precedent and law about religion. It also violates it again by NOT allowing a non-Christian religion to have their own religious artifact.

So to those with a Bible in one hand and the Constitution of the USA in the other -- you can't argue that leaving the 10 Commandments on government property is OK. You don't get to pick and choose which passages of the Bible you follow, and you certainly don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you follow.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

Because even if it honors three religions instead of one, it still isn't paying homage to the 300 and some other religions recognized by the US Government. The Constitution is clear on this. You either honor all or none, nothing in between.


Why shouldn't all 300 (if they are really unique faiths) be honoured as long as they do not promote any action which would be considered illegal? Do you have a problem with that?

I appreciate I am walking directly into the trap where someone will say 'eeeuuuwww, so I can have a statue of the spaghetti monster on the white house lawn then dude lmao, lmao, lmao" To which if I dignified it with a reply, it would be get a life.


If you can figure out a way to honor every specific religion then I have no problem with it.


And that's why we're here, Christians couldn't handle the idea of having to share the public square with the other 300 religions, especially Satanism and the Baphomet statue!



When you say "Christians" and generalize to all Christians
followed by and insult
it is judgmental bigotry and prejudice at its ugliest

The following are Christians who are included in your all Christians generalization:
Mother Theresa
Martin Luther King
Leonardo Da Vinci
Nicholas Copernicus
George Washington
Michael Faraday
Sir Winston Churchill
Desmond Tutu
Bono
JRR Tolkien
Nelson Mandela

What you said is the equivalent of this:

(please everyone note, this is NOT what I think or believe,
I am making a point here with
what will be a quite ugly and horrific and
terrible reprise of the poster's statement)

And that's why we're here, Black people couldn't handle the idea of having to share the public square with the other races, especially White people or an Asian statue!

How about this really ugly and awful and judgemental and bigoted statement statement, using your own words:

And that's why we're here, Gays couldn't handle the idea of having to share the public square with heterosexuals, or Jews and certainly not a Christian statue!



Now do you see the extreme judgementalism, bigotry, hatred, and prejudice in your statement?

edit on 11Thu, 02 Jul 2015 11:17:47 -0500am70207amk024 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: grandmakdw


There are no more legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage.



visitation rights, property rights, child custody, inheritance, estate, pensions, workplace healthcare benefits, social security and dozens of other legal differentiators that are afforded a spouse vs. some person you just live with..

If religious zealots want to stop being legally married because some gay couple they have never met got married...they are welcome to..I kinda wish they would so that they might better understand the struggles that gay couples have faced not being able to legally marry..


a marriage contract that doesn't involve government permission to marry
will offer all the same benefits you mention above

.


You are floating the failed idea that Miss and Alabama have been trying in order to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling that specified States had to issue "Marriage Licenses" to same sex couples. They proposed the "contract solution" complete with inherent forbiddance of authorizing same sex couples to enter into that "contract"...

Apart from that..Contracts are still validated and enforced by government in the courts and are more complex than marriages with contract law and associated legal complexities and vulnerabilities. It is still by government, enforced by government...more expensive and complex than a marriage license etc.It in now way is simpler and it certainly doesn't remove government from marriage...it devolves the legal status of marriage to a much more complex legal document and agreement enforced and executed by government.

Here is the monster of a new law Alabama tried to pass stipulating a GOVERNMENT marriage contract...vs...just issuing a marriage license.
legiscan.com...


The SCOTUS ruling invalidated - nullified - did away with - eliminated
any part of any state constitution
or any law by any state
or an regulation by any state
that would forbid gays from getting married.
That was what the SCOTUS ruling was all about.



I can't help you there. I have repeatedly shown you precisely what the Scotus ruled (Issuance of marriage licenses) and precisely where the Alabama constition forbids...Specifically these "contracts" they propose in place of marriage licenses..

Alabama State Constitution
(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage

It was an attempt to work around the SCOTUS ruling.

NO...the SCOTUS did not strike down the Alabama State Constitution...THAT was not in question..at all.

Someone would need to challenge the Alabama State Constituion, specifically the clause on a "union replicating marriage" aka "contract" and it would have to work it's ways through the courts...cuz the SCOTUS didn't rule on the "contract" mechanism Alabama tried to employ...for the very reason it avoids the SCOTUS ruling...

Geez...that is plain old law...you don't need to be a lawyer to get it. SCOTUS's don't issue sentiments for the nation to abide by, they issue very specific rulings on specific questions before the court.

Their ruling did not invalidate Alabama's constitution...the ruling doesn't eliminate discrimination against gays in any and all forms...frankly it seems crazy that you would blindly claim such a thing.


edit on 2-7-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: grandmakdw


There are no more legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage.



visitation rights, property rights, child custody, inheritance, estate, pensions, workplace healthcare benefits, social security and dozens of other legal differentiators that are afforded a spouse vs. some person you just live with..

If religious zealots want to stop being legally married because some gay couple they have never met got married...they are welcome to..I kinda wish they would so that they might better understand the struggles that gay couples have faced not being able to legally marry..


a marriage contract that doesn't involve government permission to marry
will offer all the same benefits you mention above

.


You are floating the failed idea that Miss and Alabama have been trying in order to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling that specified States had to issue "Marriage Licenses" to same sex couples. They proposed the "contract solution" complete with inherent forbiddance of authorizing same sex couples to enter into that "contract"...

Apart from that..Contracts are still validated and enforced by government in the courts and are more complex than marriages with contract law and associated legal complexities and vulnerabilities. It is still by government, enforced by government...more expensive and complex than a marriage license etc.It in now way is simpler and it certainly doesn't remove government from marriage...it devolves the legal status of marriage to a much more complex legal document and agreement enforced and executed by government.

Here is the monster of a new law Alabama tried to pass stipulating a GOVERNMENT marriage contract...vs...just issuing a marriage license.
legiscan.com...


The SCOTUS ruling invalidated - nullified - did away with - eliminated
any part of any state constitution
or any law by any state
or an regulation by any state
that would forbid gays from getting married.
That was what the SCOTUS ruling was all about.



I can't help you there. I have repeatedly shown you precisely what the Scotus ruled (Issuance of marriage licenses) and precisely where the Alabama constition forbids...Specifically these "contracts" they propose in place of marriage licenses..

Alabama State Constitution
(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage

It was an attempt to work around the SCOTUS ruling.

NO...the SCOTUS did not strike down the Alabama State Constitution...THAT was not in question..at all.

Someone would need to challenge the Alabama State Constituion, specifically the clause on a "union replicating marriage" aka "contract" and it would have to work it's ways through the courts...cuz the SCOTUS didn't rule on the "contract" mechanism Alabama tried to employ...for the very reason it avoids the SCOTUS ruling...

Geez...that is plain old law...you don't need to be a lawyer to get it. SCOTUS's don't issue sentiments for the nation to abide by, they issue very specific rulings on specific questions before the court.

Their ruling did not invalidate Alabama's constitution...the ruling doesn't eliminate discrimination against gays in any and all forms...frankly it seems crazy that you would blindly claim such a thing.



Let's watch the whole thing play out

then we'll know who is correct.

Until July, when the law takes affect,
you - and I
are only making opposing assumptions.

When July rolls around and gays enter into marriage contracts,
which they will, must to see what happens in Alabama,
then we will know.

Until then, no point in a futile back and forth, we'll
find out soon enough.

The proof, yours or mine,
will be in what happens
not either the
far left's ideas of what will happen
nor my idea of what will happen.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I would have sympathized with you more if you went the other direction and insisted that it isn't all Christians who believe this. At least then I could have agreed with you more. Because that is true. It is mostly right wing Christians who don't understand how our Constitution works that think this. Not all Christians fall into that category. Many Christians on the left are fine with gay marriage and there are plenty Christians on the right who may not agree with gay marriage but understand how the Constitution works so know that using religion to legislate against gay marriage is unconstitutional. Instead you went down the "misery loves company" route.


No, when I said don't tar everyone with the same brush, that was exactly what I meant - not all Christians are opposed to gay marriage by the state, but I do not believe a religion of any type should be forced to perform gay marriage. I think and always have thought that it isn't up to the state to impose such things on any faith.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

Because even if it honors three religions instead of one, it still isn't paying homage to the 300 and some other religions recognized by the US Government. The Constitution is clear on this. You either honor all or none, nothing in between.


Why shouldn't all 300 (if they are really unique faiths) be honoured as long as they do not promote any action which would be considered illegal? Do you have a problem with that?

I appreciate I am walking directly into the trap where someone will say 'eeeuuuwww, so I can have a statue of the spaghetti monster on the white house lawn then dude lmao, lmao, lmao" To which if I dignified it with a reply, it would be get a life.


If you can figure out a way to honor every specific religion then I have no problem with it.


It's really easy - honour someone's right - that doesn't mean statues everywhere - it's not a statue of God/Allah that they are talking about removing is it?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I would have sympathized with you more if you went the other direction and insisted that it isn't all Christians who believe this. At least then I could have agreed with you more. Because that is true. It is mostly right wing Christians who don't understand how our Constitution works that think this. Not all Christians fall into that category. Many Christians on the left are fine with gay marriage and there are plenty Christians on the right who may not agree with gay marriage but understand how the Constitution works so know that using religion to legislate against gay marriage is unconstitutional. Instead you went down the "misery loves company" route.


No, when I said don't tar everyone with the same brush, that was exactly what I meant - not all Christians are opposed to gay marriage by the state, but I do not believe a religion of any type should be forced to perform gay marriage. I think and always have thought that it isn't up to the state to impose such things on any faith.


I agree and so does everyone else. No one is forcing a church to marry a gay couple if it doesn't want to. There are plenty of churches that will do it, plus they could always just go to a country clerk and do it.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

Because even if it honors three religions instead of one, it still isn't paying homage to the 300 and some other religions recognized by the US Government. The Constitution is clear on this. You either honor all or none, nothing in between.


Why shouldn't all 300 (if they are really unique faiths) be honoured as long as they do not promote any action which would be considered illegal? Do you have a problem with that?

I appreciate I am walking directly into the trap where someone will say 'eeeuuuwww, so I can have a statue of the spaghetti monster on the white house lawn then dude lmao, lmao, lmao" To which if I dignified it with a reply, it would be get a life.


If you can figure out a way to honor every specific religion then I have no problem with it.


It's really easy - honour someone's right - that doesn't mean statues everywhere - it's not a statue of God/Allah that they are talking about removing is it?


It's really easy, just try to keep religious artifacts off of state grounds instead of worrying about acquiescing to everyone's wants.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: grandmakdw

The problem I have with your "solution" is that it is one thought up and now being thrown around after the SCOTUS decided to extend marriage to homosexuals.

The government should stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of government. This is why the 10 Commandments ought to be removed from the government property.

Marriage is NOT exclusive to religion, plenty of pagan cultures prior to Christianity had institutions of marriage. I keep hammering at this point. Christians do not own marriage. No one does. It's not exclusive to religion. There.

The 10 Commandments should be removed from any government building. Governments should operate agnostically without acknowledging any religion. As I've said many times, favoring one religious group (in this case Christians) by placing the 10 Commandments violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution TWICE.

It violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by allowing a Christian religious artifact to be placed on government property, making it 'legal' to present it. This establishes precedent and law about religion. It also violates it again by NOT allowing a non-Christian religion to have their own religious artifact.

So to those with a Bible in one hand and the Constitution of the USA in the other -- you can't argue that leaving the 10 Commandments on government property is OK. You don't get to pick and choose which passages of the Bible you follow, and you certainly don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you follow.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


The law was passed 19 May 2015,
before the SCOTUS decision in Alabama.

Again, time to end the back and forth regarding this.
We will all find out who is right in July.

I'm not arguing leaving the 10 Commandments on public grounds is ok, that was not my argument at all.

My argument is that if it is removed from one courthouse,
then to be fair, to be just, to be equal,
all religious symbols and writings
should be removed from all courthouses in the US, including SCOTUS.
Because the law should not discriminate.

Also Lady Liberty, must go because it's origins
can be definitively proven to be religious and was
worshiped as a religion.

I am saying you can't pick and choose what religion
to be rid of in the public square,
you can't pick and choose what courthouse
may or may not have a religious symbol.

To be consistent, to be just, to be tolerant,
to be fair, all religious symbols and writings
must go along with the 10 Commandments
from every courthouse to include SCOTUS in the US.

Otherwise, the court itself is discriminating against one particular religion.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
This is fascinating. Separation of church in state, and there are religious items displayed at a government building?

Another great decision by the court, good week or so.

Equality will always be uncomfortable to those who once reaped the benefits of inequality.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

Because even if it honors three religions instead of one, it still isn't paying homage to the 300 and some other religions recognized by the US Government. The Constitution is clear on this. You either honor all or none, nothing in between.


Why shouldn't all 300 (if they are really unique faiths) be honoured as long as they do not promote any action which would be considered illegal? Do you have a problem with that?

I appreciate I am walking directly into the trap where someone will say 'eeeuuuwww, so I can have a statue of the spaghetti monster on the white house lawn then dude lmao, lmao, lmao" To which if I dignified it with a reply, it would be get a life.


If you can figure out a way to honor every specific religion then I have no problem with it.


It's really easy - honour someone's right - that doesn't mean statues everywhere - it's not a statue of God/Allah that they are talking about removing is it?


It's really easy, just try to keep religious artifacts off of state grounds instead of worrying about acquiescing to everyone's wants.


Exactly!

And scrub every courthouse and public arena in the entire US
of any and all religious symbols
religious writings
be they ancient or modern.
If the writing, statue, or symbol has its origins in a
verifiable religion and is currently being practiced
or was at one time practiced.

Then to be fair, to be just, to be equal
all must go from all courthouses
from all public spaces
from all government buildings
or else
one is discriminating against
one religion in particular,
or 2 religions as in the case
of the 10 Commandments
(Judism, and Christianity)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: grandmakdw

The Alabama thing? That's laughable.

That was done in direct response to the SCOTUS having to take up the gay marriage issue, and their eventual ruling. Anyone who knows the Constitution knew they'd rule the way they did. Anyone who knows the SCOTUS knew gay marriage would end up going to them too. This thing in Alabama was done as a preventative measure for the eventual ruling. You can't use this as an argument. It's really reaching to try to use this Alabama thing.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness anyone? Yeah, telling two Americans they can't marry kind of infringes on that.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 2-7-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: THEatsking
This is fascinating. Separation of church in state, and there are religious items displayed at a government building?

Another great decision by the court, good week or so.

Equality will always be uncomfortable to those who once reaped the benefits of inequality.


You hit the nail on the head. It's going to hurt for those who had it the way they wanted, but in the long run it'll be better for all of us.

The thing is, the Christians who got their 10 Commandments don't seem to realize that the same religious-neutrality they fight against protects them as well! It keeps something they might find offensive from popping up in government buildings!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

First off, it's three religions. Muslims follow the Ten Commandments too. Second off, you completely misunderstood my point.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
[mpd]a reply to: grandmakdw

The Alabama thing? That's laughable.

That was done in direct response to the SCOTUS having to take up the gay marriage issue, and their eventual ruling. Anyone who knows the Constitution knew they'd rule the way they did. Anyone who knows the SCOTUS knew gay marriage would end up going to them too. This thing in Alabama was done as a preventative measure for the eventual ruling. You can't use this as an argument. It's really reaching to try to use this Alabama thing.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness anyone? Yeah, telling two Americans they can't marry kind of infringes on that.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Well, we will see in July won't we.

I NEVER said two americans, or three or four americans for that matter shouldn't be able to marry each other in the US. That is a private matter between the people involved.

But for now, let's end this back and forth,
we'll know in one month.
We can reopen this obviously sore point for you then.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grandmakdw

First off, it's three religions. Muslims follow the Ten Commandments too. Second off, you completely misunderstood my point.


Oh you are correct, I was wrong,
the 10 Commandments does represent three religions.

But you were correct in your statement that if
one religious writing or symbol is banned from
being displayed in one courthouse.
Then all religious writings, symbols, etc.
should and must be removed from all
courthouses in the US to not be discriminatory
against these 3 religions. Good point.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: THEatsking
This is fascinating. Separation of church in state, and there are religious items displayed at a government building?

Another great decision by the court, good week or so.

Equality will always be uncomfortable to those who once reaped the benefits of inequality.


You hit the nail on the head. It's going to hurt for those who had it the way they wanted, but in the long run it'll be better for all of us.

The thing is, the Christians who got their 10 Commandments don't seem to realize that the same religious-neutrality they fight against protects them as well! It keeps something they might find offensive from popping up in government buildings!


Yes equality can be quite uncomfortable.

To be equal and fair
because of this ruling

ALL and I mean ALL
religious symbols, writings and statues
must be removed from ALL and I mean all
courthouses in the USA,
otherwise the government is showing
preference for some religions over others;
or being inconsistent by allowing the 10 Commandments
to remain on the doors of the SCOTUS chamber;
or by allowing the statues of many religious figures
to adorn it's facade;
that is discriminatory and violates the separation of church
(religion, all religions, ancient and modern)
in the US.

That is the only way that this decision could be
fair, just and non-discriminatory,
to apply it to all courthouses in the nation.
To remove all religious writings, symbols, and statues.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
9
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join