Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (72734)	8/20/2003 8:28:33 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

And you are not affected by the absence of the 10 commandments, except in your own mind. Now why should one religion get a big rock with commandments on it, and all the others get nada? Shall we also have the 5 pillars of Islam? Little prayer wheels? Or is this an exclusive club- and only religions with "heritage" credentials get to put up monuments in the court. And WHY is this a good idea? (Aside from making you feel better about your religion, and the entwinement between your religion and the state.)

To: DMaA who wrote (72734)	8/20/2003 8:53:05 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

You are not affected by it in any way except in your mind. I'm going to have to go back and look at what Judge Moore had to say about it. I don't recall him saying that it was just a symbol of our heritage. I thought he said that it was the law to which we are bound. I admit I haven't been following the details on this, but I'm sure he said something like that. Maybe if he hung a sign up over it identifying it as just a symbol of our heritage. And maybe another sign asserting that defendants, witnesses, court officials, victims were treated equally in the court regardless of their religious affiliation. Otherwise someone might get the idea, say, that a witness who affirms rather than swears on the Bible should not be trusted. Then it might be OK. Wouldn't want to give the wrong impression. (A bit of tongue in cheek, here, in case it's not obvious.) Would you address the question of why this heritage has to be expressed as the Ten Commandments? There are lots of symbolic choices. Like maybe a cross. That's at least a bit more generic religion wise and it has the added benefit of not confusing the laws of God, the Commandments, with the law of the land, which is what the courthouse is supposed to be about. And then there's always the choice of the Star of David... EDIT BTW, do you recall which Christian sect's version of the Commandments it is? I forget and I'm too lazy to research it.

To: DMaA who wrote (72734)	8/20/2003 8:58:37 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You are trying to make this sound like a reasonable action, sort of an historical display, when unfortunately for your argument, Judge Moore is anything but reasonable and his act is far more than a "symbol". Judge Moore has been quite outspoken in his belief that his religion reigns supreme. Nothing symbolic about it, this is an outright in your face act of defiance that brings his religion into the courtroom. He has been doing this for a long time. Indeed, for years Moore displayed the Decalogue plaque above his dais in the county courtroom he presided over. He also ordered judicial proceedings to begin with a religious invocation, usually conducted by a local Baptist minister. We aren't talking about a generic set of principles shared by most religions, but the very specific laws of one. Moore has even said taht he would not permit Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims to erect monuments to their faiths, because they have nothing to do with what he sees as the moral foundation of law. That foundation, in Moore's mind, comes from the one true god - his god. The god of any other religion doesn't meet Moore's measure. When he testified in court, he said, that the washing machine-size monument, which he had installed secretly at midnight, represents a bulwark against what he sees as 40 to 50 years of assault on religious freedom by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court's decisions have distanced the nation from/sacknowledgment of God, and "without the acknowledgment of God there is a loss of morality," Moore said at the federal court trial in Montgomery. That is strong evidence of the plaintiffs' contention that the monument has a religious purpose that violates the constitutional separation of church and state. sullivan-county.com