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: TimF who wrote (73110)	8/22/2003 8:48:53 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

They aren't twisted around for me. 1. The judge himself has a bearing on the purpose/intent. The good judge was pretty open about why he put them up- which helped the court find the placement unconstitutional. 2. Even without the rather obnoxious judge, what secular purpose is really advanced by having the 10 commandments in a courtroom? Obviously religious people who find religions intimately connected with the secular will have an impossible time untangling the two- but really, a court of law does not refer to the 10 commandments, and having them in a court of law is unnecessary, and even counterproductive- since the 10 commandments are not the law. While there many be historic reasons to do an end run around Lemon when the 10 C have been up in a courtroom because our forefathers made a booboo and put them there, I see no point in making the mistake anew- and the courts seem to agree with me (thank goodness) that the 10C are not appropriate in a courtroom and it is, in fact, unconstitutional to have them there, absent some sort of general and broad display of many lawgiving traditions. Which is, imo, as it should be. We are supposed to be the many made one- we don't need crap in a courtroom that stresses we aren't really one, and that is a message to people who enter, not of that faith, that they can't expect equal treatment. You can SAY it doesn't mean that- but the message is pretty clear. Remember when all the Barbies were white? Same kind of message- and you can SAY it isn't an injury to the little black girls to have no Barbies that look like them, but that doesn't make it true. (and do you know how long it WAS before there was a black Barbie? 18 years from the beginning of the line)

To: TimF who wrote (73110)	8/22/2003 11:06:57 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Good analysis. I agree, because of emotion (or else because it suits their position) people are mushing together issues that should be looked at independently.

To: TimF who wrote (73110)	8/23/2003 5:38:28 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I see three issues that are getting twisted around each other to an extent. 1 - The judge himself. 2 - Should the TC have been in a court room. 3 - Is it unconstitutional to have them put in a courtroom. Good for you. I've been trying to argue one thread at a time to no avail. I've said several times that there's a question of civility, your number two, and a question of constitutionality, your number three. (I've been ignoring the judge because he's just nuts.) It has been very frustrating arguing number two and having people come back with number three. Frankly, I care much less about the constitutionality issue than I do about the utter lack of respect and collaboration between the pro an anti sides. There's no reason why issues like this should ever get to court. OTOH, if the constitutionality issue weren't hanging over their heads, the pro-TC crowd would probably be even less inclined to entertain the notion that the TC might not be appropriate in some venues.