Posted on 08/20/2003 2:43:26 PM PDT by angkor
So to you the Ten Commandments is not an article of religious significance? Is this a common belief in the churches these days? If it has no religious significance, why are people so agitated about its removal? After all, it's just an artifact of history, right? Presumably, some other historical artifact will replace it - plenty of those to choose from. I've always been fond of the portrait of Washington crossing the Delaware myself. Maybe that ordinary historical artifact can replace this other ordinary historical artifact. Seems kind of funny that people get so upset over plain old art or history...
Judge keeps Ten Commandments
"A U.S. district court under Judge Myron Thompson ruled against Chief Justice Moore on Nov. 18, 2002. On July 1, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against Chief Justice Moore, saying displays on government property cannot promote or be affiliated with a religion.
promote = To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.;To advance to the next higher grade ; To contribute to the progress or growth of; further ; To urge the adoption of; advocate ; To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity ; To help establish or organize.
It was there before the government was[But our government was established around it]
Its not being advertised !
Its not being sold !
Its not being established ! [It already was !]
You can't advance it to a higher grade [Its already to the highest grade it can be unless you think your better than God!]
No one stands in front of it and and advocates or pushes you to adopt it !
Its already Popular and its already organized in many fashions and sects just choose one!
To say it cant be affiliated with religion is backwards as our laws are created from the very same beleifs! Unless of course your liberal then you have no beleifs save 1 and that is the beleif that your right and no one else ever is.
It can be either, depending on the person looking at it. To some the display is merely a rock with something that looks like a book on it. To others its a representation of a historical document. To Christians, Jews and Muslims, it could represent God's laws and as such could be considered "religious" or could be considered informational. We would have to take a poll to be sure and I might suspect the results of such poll would differ based on location, social background education etc.
In addition, many theologians would strongly object that this represents religion. For example Paul would probably object to the concept that the commandments are something that should be venerated. Only the spirit of God and his grace under which we are currently should be lifted up and if we do that first the spirit will fill our hearts with the law. Paul would object that this veneration of the commadments is not Christianity and more importantly its not the way to convert others to Christianity. In fact I would not be surprised that Paul would want it removed precisely because it goes against what the Gods spirit taught him.
You are on a very slippery slope if you want to start assigning intentions to objects. In fact this idea of assigning good and evil to objects has its roots in ancient religions like Gnosticism which has forms of dualism as its basis of thought.
Besides being totally ridiculous, futile, irrational and illogical, looking to the intent of the artist is an application over time that will yield results that none of us will like.
I wonder what the people praying in front of it think. I suspect they might actually get a bit testy if you were to suggest that it wasn't really an article of religious significance.
You are on a very slippery slope if you want to start assigning intentions to objects.
I don't have to assign intentions to objects - the intentions of the state are the issue, not the "intentions" of the object itself. A rock cannot violate the Constitution - it is an inanimate object. However, Roy Moore can violate the Constitution when he uses that rock to promote his religion at the expense of others. And I don't have to "assign intentions" to him either - he came right out and said why he was doing what he was doing.
Spin it all you want, but Roy Moore is violating the law by doing what he did. And that's a fact.
Besides being totally ridiculous, futile, irrational and illogical, looking to the intent of the artist is an application over time that will yield results that none of us will like.
You can't be serious. Let's follow your proposal to its logical conclusion, and stop considering intent in the criminal courts as well as the civil courts. Do you think that will yield results you like? Think carefully, because I'll suggest a whole host of consequences that you probably won't care for.
So you want to use a small group of people as the method to determine if something is relgious ? What if folks started praying to the Brookyln Bridge ? Shall we remove it then ?
I don't have to assign intentions to objects - the intentions of the state are the issue, not the "intentions" of the object itself. A rock cannot violate the Constitution - it is an inanimate object.
Yes you do. Unless you incorprate Moore's beliefs of what teh rock represents it just a rock.
. Spin it all you want, but Roy Moore is violating the law by doing what he did. And that's a fact.
I'm not spinning. I'm merely pointing out to you the absurd results of using your test to determine if Moore's rock is religious. I do however believe there is a logical way to do it as I explained to you before and that method is similar to the one we use to determine what is porngraphy. I will give to you that is more likely than not that it would be considered a religious object under my proposed test but at least my test is rational. Besides being totally ridiculous, futile, irrational and illogical, looking to the intent of the artist is an application over time that will yield results that none of us will like. You can't be serious. Let's follow your proposal to its logical conclusion, and stop considering intent in the criminal courts as well as the civil courts. Do you think that will yield results you like? Think carefully, because I'll suggest a whole host of consequences that you probably won't care for.
No, actually I don't want to use polls in general to determine what is and isn't Constitutionally acceptable, unlike the direction you seem to be headed in. Some things are too important to be left to the passions of the mob. That's why we have a republic, and not a direct democracy.
Yes you do. Unless you incorprate Moore's beliefs of what teh rock represents it just a rock.
The rock isn't on trial here. Roy Moore is. And in accordance with that, Roy Moore's motives are entirely relevant and entirely appropriate to examine. I'm not sure why you want to dismiss that notion, other than perhaps because Moore's stated intentions are rather inconvenient to the case you want to make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.