More like ""I''d like to state my own opinion without Ralcydan putting words in my mouth.""
Now you''re catching on. Soon you''ll learn that you don''t have to say anything anymore; ral can convienently misrepresent your position and stuff your mouth full of words you didn''t say while you sleep!
If it''s really that cut and dried, then please explain to me why the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal? You seem so certain about it, so tell me why they didn''t just take the case and say the ruling was illegal or that the court had no jurisdiction?
Because ultimately the Supreme Court (or at least 5 of its justices) is part of the problem. At some point a government body outside of the judiciary is going to refuse to comply and force the issue. I somehow doubt that any US president is going to send in the armed forces to remove a 10 Commandments monument.
The idea that this would lead to anarchy is silly. I can give you plenty of examples where the states have passed laws or taken action that went against federal law, and the states have simply been left alone - because ultimately the federal government knows that it cannot justify trying to enforce laws against the will of the states.
Now you''re catching on. Soon you''ll learn that you don''t have to say anything anymore; ral can convienently misrepresent your position and stuff your mouth full of words you didn''t say while you sleep!
Ridiculous. If you guys have opinions that you can back up, present them and argue them. Don''t get pissy at me when they don''t hold up. Maybe you should rethink some of your ideas if they can''t stand the slightest scrutiny.
If you guys have opinions that you can back up, present them and argue them.
Accusations and arguements need facts to back them up, opinions are just that, opinions. Opinions are no less valid if they happen to be wrong.
Opinions are no less valid if they happen to be wrong.
I''m not sure I follow that. So if I come in here ranting about how all gays are going to hell or that blacks are genetically inferior, you will consider my opinions ""valid""?
By the way ""valid"" means ""well-grounded"" - meaning something does indeed have to be backed up before it should be considered valid.
An opinion is just an opinion. I think your opinions are gays and blacks are dead wrong, but no amount of justification from you will change anybody''s mind about it. We gladly submit our opinions to your berating, which just justifies our views even more.
I wonder if card-carrying members of the ACLU celebrate Christmas, aka. the celebration of the birth of Christ.
An opinion is just an opinion.
Wow, who needs a dictionary with that kind of explanation! There are a lot of opinions here offered as facts, especially by yourself. I find it funny that you are now letting us know that even you didn''t think they could be substantiated.
I think your opinions are gays and blacks are dead wrong
As an aside, those aren''t my opinions on blacks or gays - I know that you skim these posts a lot, but you can often tell a hypothetical by the ""if"" at the beginning. Just a tip.
We gladly submit our opinions to your berating, which just justifies our views even more.
And nothing tells me that my opinions are valid more than your counter ""examples"" and ""logic"". See? We really are making a difference here!
As an aside, those aren''t my opinions on blacks or gays
You believe that the black community is the source of crime from that community. You think gays do not qualify as a protected class nor do you see that they have their rights limited.
We really are making a difference here!
Yes you do. I used to think of myself as a centrist, but now will gladly own the title ""Liberal"" thanks to some of the more radical positions you have taken.
You believe that the black community is the source of crime from that community.
As opposed to blacks committing crimes because whites are forcing them to? Yes, although your explanation is overly simplistic.
You think gays do not qualify as a protected class nor do you see that they have their rights limited.
You''ll have to quote me on this one, because I never said either of those things.
I was really just clarifying your attempt to suggest that my opinions matched the obviously bigoted hyptheticals I used above. They don''t.
Yes you do. I used to think of myself as a centrist, but now will gladly own the title ""Liberal"" thanks to some of the more radical positions you have taken.
I''m glad I could demonstrate to you that you wrongly thought of yourself as a centrist.
*dodge* *dodge* *duck* *parry* *thrust*
Looking at the last 2 threads you''ve ""commented"" on, Rat, did you just come in here to pick a fight or what? I mean, I like you, Rat, I value your oppinion... but there has been no oppinion on an issue today, just an oppinion about Ral and the Conservative Overmind (tm).
I know I don''t contribute much, but I love to listen in on an intelligent discussion.
I wonder if card-carrying members of the ACLU celebrate Christmas, aka. the celebration of the birth of Christ.
I know I do.
Looking at the last 2 threads you''ve ""commented"" on, Rat, did you just come in here to pick a fight or what?
You see, that''s the problem with these threads these days. Issue arguments eventually dissolve to this point after both sides have lost all their breath trying to state and restate their position ad nauseum in some vain attempt at persuasion.
Well, frankly, I''ve had enough. The P&C forum stopped being fun when it started being about that, when the shouting outweighed the discourse. I''ll freely admit that I am a source of this, but I am but one source. So, I''m out. I came to Gamers With Jobs to discuss gaming and jobs, not to have to justify myself to a few (all right, one) loud-mouthed hacks who are more interested in repeatedly parading beliefs and destroying the other side than simply just stating the belief and trying to find common ground with the other side.
The P&C forum stopped being fun when it started being about that, when the shouting outweighed the discourse.
Says the person who started the shouting in the first place. Rat, it is hard to find sympathy for you wanting ""discourse"" and ""common ground"" when you are always the first person to start name-calling and off-topic jabs.
Having said that, I will miss the Rat Boy who was actually willing to take a stand and defend it with facts and reason, but won''t miss whoever has been substituting for him lately.
Good day sir.
If this thread gets back on track I won''t have to lock it. I think that would be nice, a derailed thread given a second chance at life. Don''t you?
Nope.
EDIT:
Can anyone find anything in the Constitution that supports the examples of the ACLU having the Ten Commandments removed?
I think we had a decent thread on this a couple of weeks ago, but it might have been on the Mass thing and their constitution, seperation of church and state and all that.
Nope. ;)
Irony.
Topic: There are no laws that I am aware of either enacted by Congress or instituted by a State that prohibit a government institution from displaying an openly religious document or sentiment. Generally these displays are benign and have historical connections to the institution or location.
It would be interesting to see a law prohibiting this if it exists.
Been busy reading through the text of the decision that the monument was unconstitutional, you can find it here.
Some quotes:
In his trial testimony before this court, the Chief Justice gave more structure to his understanding of the relationship of God and the state, and the role the monument was intended to play in conveying that message. He explained that the Judeo-Christian God reigned over both the church and the state in this country, and that both owed allegiance to that God.
The Chief Justice also explained at trial how his design and placement of the monument reflected this understanding [*21] of the relationship of God and the state. His design concerns were religious rather than secular in that the quotations were placed on the sides of the monument instead of on its top because, in keeping with his religious belief, these statements were the words of man and thus could not be placed on the same plane with the Word of God.
This case, indeed, is unique in that, under not only the Lemon test, but also under the test proposed by some of Lemon''s most vocal critics on the United States Supreme Court, the Chief Justice''s placement of the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama State Judicial Building would be unconstitutional. In County of Allegheny v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 106 L. Ed. 2d 472, 109 S. Ct. 3086 (1989), Justice Kennedy, writing for himself and Justices Rehnquist and Scalia, two of Lemon''s strongest critics, suggested that religious endorsement was not enough to establish an Establishment Clause violation, that there must be more, such as ""proselytization"" or ""coercion."" Id. at 660, 109 S. Ct. at 3136-37 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). As he explained, ""coercion need not be a direct tax in aid of religion or a test oath. Symbolic recognition of accommodation of religious faith may violate the Clause in an extreme case. I doubt not, for example, that the Clause [*28] forbids a city to permit the permanent erection of a large Latin cross on the roof of city hall. This is not because government speech about religion is per se suspect, as the majority would have it, but because such an obtrusive year-round religious display would place the government''s weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion.""
....Justice Kennedy''s proselytization test is met here. Both in appearance and in stated purpose, the Chief Justice''s Ten Commandments monument is an ""extreme case""; it is nothing less than ""an obtrusive year-round religious display"" installed in the Alabama State Judicial Building in order to ""place the government''s weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion,"" the Chief Justice''s religion.
And my favorite, mind you this is in response to Moore''s own testimony before the court:
... in the Chief Justice''s view, it is the Judeo-Christian God, through the Biblically dictated separation of church and state, who gives Americans the freedom of conscience to believe in whatever faith they choose. Americans are free to worship other Gods only because the Judeo-Christian God, and the Judeo-Christian God alone, allows for freedom of conscience. Because all other Gods, in the Chief Justice''s view, do not allow for freedom of conscience, we, as Americans, would not have such freedom if another God were placed over the church and state under our governmental framework.
and
Noting that the Establishment Clause provides that government ""shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"" Chief Justice Moore contends that the plaintiffs'' challenge to the monument must fail because there is no ""law"" at issue here. The Chief Justice asserts that, although he put the monument in the Judicial Building as a state actor, his actions did not constitute a ""law"" or ""law-making"" for Establishment Clause purposes. The [*67] court cannot agree.The Chief Justice placed the monument in the Judicial Building Rotunda under his authority as administrative head of Alabama''s judicial system. Ala. Const. amend. 328, § 6.10 (administration); Ala. Code § 41-10-275 (1975) (leases). His placement of the monument therefore has the force of law. The Chief Justice is the only person with the authority to place the monument or remove it, authority given to him by the laws of Alabama. To say that his actions in placing the monument in the Alabama Judicial Building does not constitute a ""law"" obfuscates the truth of the situation: the monument was placed in the Judicial Building by a state official, acting in his official state capacity, under powers granted to him by state law.
It''s an interesting read, and I''m certainly no lawyer or legal scholar. However it seems to me, in my OPINION, that the decision does the job and follows precedent set by the Supreme Court. It even demonstrates why some of the more conservative justices like Scalia would probably end up ruling the same way, the fact that they chose not to hear the appeal implicitly backs up this demonstration. Moore''s own testimony on his views of Church and State don''t help his case much either.
Moore''s own testimony on his views of Church and State don''t help his case much either.
Which would be true, if the first amendment required a separation of church and state - which it explicitly does not. I actually agree, that based on precedent, the courts should have been expected to rule this way. But those precedents are faulty, as they do not come from the law, but rather rewrite it, exceeding judicial authority.
I''m not going to say anything on the main topic of debate here, as I think it''s pretty well covered. But I want to point out that the all of the suits by the ACLU were instigated by complaints from local residents, and handled by local lawyers in the relevant state chapters of the ACLU, and paid for out of contributions to those local chapters. This idea of lawyers swooping in from New York to stir things up, at least in the cases mentioned here, is inaccurate.
blah blah blah...is this thread locked yet? no,ok....
I think way back when there was a question from the German guy about how bad it was that the Judge disobeyed a Court order. There is precedent in this country for disobeying a law found to be ""unjust"". Martin Luther King Jr, and who was that other guy? Thoreau? Elysium probably knows. The guy who wouldn''t pay his taxes because he was protesting war and was sent to jail. Then his friend says, ""What are you doing in there? (jail)"" And then the other guy goes ""The more important question is, why are you out there?"" Do you know who I''m talking about, Elysium?
Anyway, it''s called civil disobediance. He passionately believed the Ten Commandments should stay, and lost his job because of it. He took a stand and lost. It''s admirable that he tried. You people that are so quick to judge, what would you sacrifice for what you believe in? Martin Luther King Jr. sacrificed his life.
Anyway, civil disobediance is how things get changed in America. However, there just doesn''t seem to be a big groundswell for keeping the Ten Commandments in courthouses. There is big support for the Pledge of Allegiance and watch what happens when the Supreme Court says the Pledge is unconstitutional.
I''m just killing time before I get to open presents by the way.
Pages