Supreme Court-Out of Touch

[DJ]

The US Supreme court is out of touch, IMHO.<br /><br />By ruling that the "ten commandments" cannot be displayed in courtrooms, they show their bias.<br /><br />The ruling, IMHO is dubious, at best. They show no preference for Executive and Legislative branches. They chose one battle (Judiciary) and ruled.<br /><br />So, what is it. None, or only in certain places. Come on, ACLU, make up your mind. Or, is the ACLU taking the "eat an elephant-one bite at a time" approach. I think the latter.<br /><br />The constitution, of the US, CLEARLY, denoted the "seperation of the branches", (NOT Church and State as we've been taught-READ IT.) of government".<br /><br />Lately, it seems that the courts have TOTAL control. <br /><br />We've "lawyered up" to everyones demise. The liberal media is making sure, quite sure, that their lies are believed. The media knows that the average Amercan (especially the last two generations) have been dumbed down to the point of apathy. <br /><br />We can look at past advanced civilizations (Greeks, Romans, etc.)for proof. But, that's TOO hard.<br /><br />For you "non spriritual" types out there, re-writing history DOES NOT CHANGE IT. Maybe in your mind, but NOT in fact.<br /><br />Unless people wake up, WE'RE doomed!

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

Man DJ, every day I feel like we are drifting a Little more towards the abyss... like the drip-drip-drip before the civil war... These court decisions are so out of whack that they are scary... In every case they chose the power of the Gov over the power of the people and against religious expression. It's like watching a train wreck. You can see it coming but there is nothing you can do but watch...

 

[mattttt25]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

dj- i don't completely follow your post. but i have to agree with the supreme court ruling. from what i've read about it, they basically tried to draw the fine line between promoting religion and displaying religion from a historial standpoint. if a courthouse elects to display the ten commandments outside the courthouse to show the civil and religious history of our laws- the court said that is OK. but if they place the commandments in bold over the courtroom doors, they are obviously promoting the religious aspects of them and orienting our court system with them. from the ruling as i read it, they simply stated that each display needs to be comtemplated and ensured it doesn't leave the message that the court "sanctions" the ten commandments. as much as some hate to hear it, i think we should do everything in our power to avoid involving religion with government. if done properly and with respect for each, this is a very easy thing to do in my mind. i respect the commandments, try to live by them, and understand their christian background. i also respect our govt system and the courts. i have no need to read the commandments if i ever end up at a courthouse.

 

[knobby]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

Train wreck for sure,<br /><br />Supreme Court building, including the courtroom, show the historical significance of the Ten Commandments. None of those artworks includes the actual text of the Ten Commandments, although four commandments are partly visible in Hebrew letters in one image. It is perhaps notable that those specific commandments, Nos. 6 to 10, are totally secular in nature, unlike the first few commandments, which are explicitly sectarian.<br /><br />Courtroom friezes portray Moses as one of 18 historic lawgivers. Moses is shown holding the tables of the Ten Commandments<br /><br />A separate frieze at the Supreme Court shows a single tablet containing the Roman numerals 1 to 10, but no text. The Ten Commandments are usually portrayed as being on two tablets of stone; so the single tablet with Roman numerals does not necessarily represent the Ten Commandments, and has been interpreted to represent ancient laws generally. The bottom of one door to the courtroom has a carving of two tablets with the Roman numerals 1 to 10

 

[gspig]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

All that the Supreme Court has done is to uphold the status quo. Any display of the Ten Comandments will still be challenged in court. The Court ruling is a value judgement, not a hard fast rule for display. As stupid as "zero tolerance" rules appear, they are a hard fast rule that is spelled out and leaves no ambiguity.

 

[wvit100]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

Aren't the Ten Commandments posted in the U.S. Supreme Court chamber? <br /><br />No, but multiple pieces of artwork in the Supreme Court building, including the courtroom, show the historical significance of the Ten Commandments in a context that puts it on par with other influential laws from numerous cultural backgrounds. None of those artworks includes the actual text of the Ten Commandments, although four commandments are partly visible in Hebrew letters in one image. It is perhaps notable that those specific commandments, Nos. 6 to 10, are totally secular in nature, unlike the first few commandments, which are explicitly sectarian.<br /><br />Courtroom friezes portray Moses as one of 18 historic lawgivers. He is given equal prominence with lawgivers from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Islam, Confucianism, sun worship, and both Egyptian and Greco-Roman paganism. While Moses is shown holding the tables of the Ten Commandments, Muhammad is shown holding the Quran, the primary source of Islamic law, and the first pharaoh, Menes, is shown holding the ankh, an Egyptian mythological symbol representing eternal life. Other figures are shown holding secular legal documents. England’s 12th-century King John is shown holding the Magna Carta, which he signed, while the Dutch legal scholar and statesman Hugo Grotius is shown holding his 1625 book, Concerning the Law of War and Peace, one of the first books on international law.<br /><br />The frieze also includes Greco-Roman-style allegorical figures, including Equity, Philosophy, Right of Man, Liberty and Peace. To see an actual image of this frieze, visit this page on the Supreme Court’s Web site.<br /><br />A separate frieze at the Supreme Court shows a single tablet containing the Roman numerals 1 to 10, but no text. The Ten Commandments are usually portrayed as being on two tablets of stone; so the single tablet with Roman numerals does not necessarily represent the Ten Commandments, and has been interpreted to represent ancient laws generally. The bottom of one door to the courtroom has a carving of two tablets with the Roman numerals 1 to 10, but no text.<br /><br />Sculptures above the east entrance to the Supreme Court building again portray Moses (holding blank tablets) as one of three major Eastern lawgivers, the others being Confucius and Solon, portrayed with numerous other allegorical figures and the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. Moses is at the center of this group, above the words “Justice the Guardian of Liberty,” but according to a description of the East Pediment on the Supreme Court’s Web site, this art pays tribute to great civilizations and their laws, without specific mention of the Ten Commandments<br /><br /> http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/topic_faqs.aspx?topic=public_displays

 

[salty87]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

i, personally, don't see the need for courthouses, or other govt bldg's, advocating or displaying anyone's religious beliefs....christian, jewish, muslim, scientology....doesn't matter to me. the law, although you can make the argument that they are based on religious doctrines, is not based on religion. at least not our system based on precedent.<br /><br />i don't go to churches, mosques, movie theaters, wherever for legal needs and i don't go to the courthouse or any government bldg for religious needs.<br /><br />it does seem to me that the supreme court was smoking the wacky weed this session though. i lke how fast states are scrambling to protect homeowners. i wonder if the justices even care.

 

[wvit100]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

One your way home today notice how many churches you pass. I know I pass at least 5. The courts do not try to limit your ability to practice your religion in public or in your home. Everyone in this country is free to go to any church they want and to practice any religion they wish without interference from the government.<br /><br />All the courts say is that government - legislature, courts, schools, etc. - is to represent all the people, not just the Christians. The laws of the government and the courts apply to everyone in this country.

 

[wvit100]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

lke how fast states are scrambling to protect homeowners. i wonder if the justices even care. <br /><br />And this is what the Court said. That State governments have the right to condemn property within their borders. The State's are free to make any laws they wish as far as condemnation is concerned. All the Court said was that the government does have the authority to condemn property for public uses. The State's are free to define "public uses" as they see fit within their borders.

 

[NYMINUTE]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

The majority of these justices are in their late 70's and early 80's. Time to retire you old fools. You are a half century behind the rest of the country!

 

[K Hultgre]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

wrong topic

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

"The US Supreme court is out of touch, IMHO."<br />-----------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I expected as much, afterall those judges don't even live on the same planet as the rest of us<br />

 

[QC]

Re: Supreme Court-Out of Touch

Originally posted by salty87:<br /> the law, although you can make the argument that they are based on religious doctrines, is not based on religion

First of all Salty, sounds like a major contradiction to me. Second, I would submit that our only valid definitions of right and wrong are based on religion and that all of our laws can be traced back to religious beliefs. That is why the historical value of the Ten Commandments is a valid display at a courthouse.<br /><br />This is also why a definiton of marriage as between a man and a woman is so important. Without some basis as a definition, there is no argument against allowing marriages to frogs. The only basis I know of is religion unless you believe that the plumbing is the ultimate answer, which of course it is in the marriage case . . . Sorry to ramble, but the point is you MUST have something to define these things or it is just up to us and we cannot be trusted . . .