Thursday, July 29, 2010

Judge Wants Ten Commandments Monument in Tennessee Courthouse


July 27, 2010 on 6 News
A Hawkins County judge wants to have a "Foundations of American Law and Government" display put up at the justice center that opened in January, but there's controversy.

The suggested plan is to put up several framed historic documents and the Ten Commandments up on a bare wall in the building.
Read more
Tags: , ,

11 comments:

  1. How childish are not the extra large letters "UNDER GOD" in the pledge or the IN "GOD WE TRUST" ?
    Like a six year old shouting at the top of his lungs.
    ReplyDelete
  2. On second thought it belies the actual truth of the founding documents where "WE THE PEOPLE" is hugely enlarged (find a pic of the constitution). for emphasis and god isn't mentioned at all.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Things like this highlights why the addition of "under God" in the pledge and the national motto "In God we trust" is such a problem.

    However once they have gotten in removing them becomes virtually impossible since politicians, regardless of their personal views on the subject, feel that they cannot voice their opinions on it because it would alienate to many voters.

    Thus this falls on the supreme court judges who sit there for life to actually stand up and say that this is a clear violation of the separation of church and state and force congress to change it. The reason that it is a clear violation is obvious, the non-believers say that it is an endorsement of religion and the religious point to it as evidence that the US is a christian nation and use it to try silly stuff like what we see in this video. In a sence both sides agree here.
    ReplyDelete
  4. which version?Jul 29, 2010 10:30 AM
    The babble is not even consistent on this....
    ReplyDelete
  5. I find it interesting the pastor refers to opposition efforts as a desire to 'whitewash'.
    ReplyDelete
  6. <span>That moron should be ejected fron the bench </span> :-D
    ReplyDelete
  7. 4 of the commandments are strictly religious and would violate separation of church and state if they were made into law.

    Only 3 commandments match U.S. law: murder, theft, and libel. Even these are screwed because they are commandments and are, therefore, out of a "reasons why" context that would provide a basis for them and make them intelligible. These commandments arn't offered as an intellectual perspective that we're invited to think about validate and adopt -- as a philosopher would do. In effect, the commandments say: "What's good is what I say is good; just do what you're told and don't ask for reasons why."

    And, how can anyone think these commandments are great when they don't even prohibit the owning of slaves. A fifth grade class could probably create a better set of "commandments" than the one provided by the nutter's all-knowing god.

    Oh yes, another commandment would be to prohibit faith healing. It'll gross you out but please check the news item titled "Faith-healers baby seized, parents face criminal charges" which is under the "News & Blogs" heading on the right of the page.
    ReplyDelete
  8. The judge states "It has nothing to do with religion" but then makes a comment about it being "a part of our religion."  Who's religion might that be, not mine, not that of many people, but it is that "of the judge."  Your honor, keep your personal habits and beliefs to yourself!  And pastor, from the Baptist church, show me the part of ANY of the founding documents that says ANYTHING about God, Christ, Jesus or Christians.  (they just don't exist!)
    ReplyDelete
  9. It must be OK to have the Ten Commandments at government buildings. We have a stone monument listing them on the Capital lawn here in Texas. Isn't that good enough to prove the case?
    ReplyDelete
  10. Over and over again, it's never about religion, yet it's always about religion.
    Some seem to actually believe both sides. From the Wikipedia page for double think:

    "In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is cognitive dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one's mind."
    ReplyDelete
  11. Its pretty fucked up that a judge doesnt know this is unconstitutional.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)