| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Should the 10 Commandments be there? |
| YES |
|
31% |
[ 6 ] |
| NO |
|
68% |
[ 13 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
quote:
Putting such a symbol up in a court of law, which is not a museum, to me indicates a bias towards religion. Ideally a court of law should be a place without bias.
Yes, your fate is to be determined by twelve illiterate people who didn't think of a way to get out of jury duty.
It's a clear cut issue to me. Some wise quotation along the lines of "If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going " comes to mind.
The easiest way to figure out whether it stays or not is to take a binding poll from the God-fearing-folk of Alabama. 50% + 1 say yes, it stays. 50% + 1 say no, it goes. That's what democracy is about, isn't it? Refer to my example of chair worshipping peoples. At what point is enough enough?
_________________
Make good choices. |
Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:56 am |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
quote:
Putting such a symbol up in a court of law, which is not a museum, to me indicates a bias towards religion. Ideally a court of law should be a place without bias.
Yes, your fate is to be determined by twelve illiterate people who didn't think of a way to get out of jury duty.
People who serve on juries are serving their country, and I haven't found them to be illiterate.
quote:
It's a clear cut issue to me. Some wise quotation along the lines of "If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going " comes to mind.
So read a book, or go to school.
quote:
The easiest way to figure out whether it stays or not is to take a binding poll from the God-fearing-folk of Alabama. 50% + 1 say yes, it stays. 50% + 1 say no, it goes. That's what democracy is about, isn't it? Refer to my example of chair worshipping peoples. At what point is enough enough?
Not if it violates the constitution. I think it will take more.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:03 am |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
quote:
People who serve on juries are serving their country, and I haven't found them to be illiterate.
I missed the opportunity to quote you before your first edit. Drat.
If they're to be unbiased, they had better not have read any newspaper articles about the subject. Hmm? Having jurors reading newspapers about your heinous crime has got to be much more biassed than having an immobile statue sitting in the rotunda. To ensure fair trials, we had best create a caste of people who are to live in seclusion until they are summoned to watch court proceedings and then rule, right? I seriously doubt that the issue of how biassed people become when they see a Monument is any more than a facade, a clever little dustcover.
Taxation seems to be enough of civic duties for me. If I begin working at the age of 21 and stop working at the age of 65, that will be 44 years of work. If I'm taxed 40% (which is rather low, given the country of my residence) that translates into 17.6 years of servitude to the state, and if I live to the age of 75, that constitutes 23.5% of my life's earnings-over-time being given away to the state. Heaven forbid we talk about taxation on goods or taxation on capital gains, which is really a tax on monies already taxed, or retirement plans, where I will have strung out over a longer period of time taxable income.
quote:
So read a book, or go to school.
Neither of those interest me as much as furthering Pedantix® at the moment.
quote:
Not if it violates the constitution.
Would you care to point to me the Amendment in the Constitution that clearly defines the Separation of Church and State? No common law rulings, please.
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:35 am |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
12 illiterate people judging me as fairly as they can on a jury, is alot better than an angry crowd, hanging me before a trail. Illiteraticy is something I hope we could rid the world of, but I dont think being illiterate makes some one unfair, just illiterate. Paying taxes is one important way to serve the state, and serving on a jury is another. Both are needed to substain our current life styles. I guess you could argue the state is not worth serving, but if you do you must then get rid of all the things the state provides (roads, police, fire, water & waste disposal--these direct cost are greatly reduced by taxes, but not completely elimated). No one is unbiased, but what else are we to do?
LB |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 4:11 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Move to Australia!! 
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:01 am |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
As far as I can remember I made the analogy why I don't want it to be in a Dutch courthouse, although I do feel it doesn't belong in any courthouse. We don't have a jury and not all crimes in the USA are trialed by jury either if I'm not mistaken.
I don't know what tax has to do with things do and I don't know tax laws in the US, but over here I pay 40% also, but not over my complete salary. We have 3 scales and the major part of my salary is taxed in these two first scales first. So besides that I don't understand what it has to do here, I can only assume that your calculation is flawed.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:04 am |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
quote:
Not if it violates the constitution.
Would you care to point to me the Amendment in the Constitution that clearly defines the Separation of Church and State? No common law rulings, please.
I think this section from the Alabama constitution wraps it up nicely:
SECTION 3
Religious freedom.
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.
quote:
I missed the opportunity to quote you before your first edit. Drat.
quote:
If they're to be unbiased, they had better not have read any newspaper articles about the subject. Hmm? Having jurors reading newspapers about your heinous crime has got to be much more biassed than having an immobile statue sitting in the rotunda...
Nothing is perfect, but we attempt to find unbiased jurors. Just because all bias can't be removed doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
quote:
Taxation seems to be enough of civic duties for me. ...
You are compelled to do serve your country by whatever laws are in place. A country doesn't run on money alone.
quote:
quote:
So read a book, or go to school.
Neither of those interest me as much as furthering Pedantix® at the moment.
I can see that. 
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:04 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
quote:
Originally posted by Myrthos
I can only assume that your calculation is flawed.
Multiplication is not difficult.
I like the wordings of the Alabama Constitution. The monument was placed up by an elected official (who, by the way, won by a landslide in his second term after he was unsuccessfully sued by some extreme latrines, oops, I mean libertarians, for putting a plaque of the 10c's above the Bench back in '95 or so)
quote:
That no religion shall be established by law;
No religion was created, no idolatry practised.
quote:
that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship;
No laws were created, so none could violate this.
quote:
that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship;...
Again, the Commandments are not to be worshipped, if I'm not mistaken, the Fourth Clause in that version says "Thou shalt not make graven images."
And about the compelled part, no one who is compelled, that is to say, accused of a crime, to enter through the front doors. In fact, in most courthouses, there are well guarded back doors and corridors reserved for the accused, to keep them away from the media.
Further, there is a difference between a church and place with an object that can be associated with a religion.
quote:
...and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.
Again, the spirit of this means freedom of religion, not freedom from it.
In a court, your religion is not necessarily explicitly asked for, so, in effect, by you declaring your religion, or lack thereof, you seem to be actively seeking the opportunity to be offended.
Yes, it does wrap it up nicely.
quote:
not all crimes in the USA are trialed by jury either if I'm not mistaken.
Correct, some cases, that is minor assaults, misdemeanours, traffic tickets, etc. are tried either before a judge alone or a clerk of the court alone. So, you're being judged by someone who has seen hundreds of the same case before (and until quite recently, was always a wealthy late 50's white male who prosecuted or defended for such cases all his working life. I'm not knocking them, but my uncle fit the stereotype perfectly). Yikes. Actually, they try to be very fair, but again, they are the lot of them exposed to the media, and although many of their cases do not reach print, some do. In local studies over the past 10 years, if you're convicted of an assault charge and you're an aboriginal, you're ~twice as likely to get a harsher sentence than someone of a different ethnicity who committed a similar crime. *shrug*
Um, LB, I think one of use missed something. You're right when you say "12 illiterate people judging me as fairly as they can on a jury, is alot better than an angry crowd, hanging me before a trail." but although that would be the ideal, it doesn't happen.
I also don't like taxes because, quite frankly, this town has the highest property taxes (and, oddly enough, some of the lowest physical values of property) in North America, with the exception of the swankest parts of the West Coast. It's got to do with the demographics of the place (the fastest growing demographic is exempt from most types of taxation), and I don't really want to discuss it, because the problem is only going to get worse before it gets better.
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 4:35 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
I like the wordings of the Alabama Constitution. The monument was placed up by an elected official (who, by the way, won by a landslide in his second term after he was unsuccessfully sued by some extreme latrines, oops, I mean libertarians, for putting a plaque of the 10c's above the Bench back in '95 or so)
An elected official whose job it is to interpret the law and whose judgements carry the force of law, but is now showing extremely poor judgement by ignoring the law and is using his power to promote religion where it doesn't belong.
quote:
No religion was created, no idolatry practised.
But religion is inherent by the very nature of the monument.
quote:
No laws were created, so none could violate this.
A court is a place intimately associated with law, therefore should not be associated with religion of any form.
quote:
Again, the Commandments are not to be worshipped, if I'm not mistaken, the Fourth Clause in that version says "Thou shalt not make graven images."
And about the compelled part, no one who is compelled, that is to say, accused of a crime, to enter through the front doors. In fact, in most courthouses, there are well guarded back doors and corridors reserved for the accused, to keep them away from the media.
You are reaching here. It says attend, not view. Accused, jurors and witnesses are compelled by law to attend trials in a building that now has a prominent symbol of a particular religion. if it isn't being worshiped, then why are these people so up in arms about it being removed? What do you think the response would be if I took a sledgehammer to it?
quote:
Further, there is a difference between a church and place with an object that can be associated with a religion.
What difference would that be?
quote:
Again, the spirit of this means freedom of religion, not freedom from it.
In a court, your religion is not necessarily explicitly asked for, so, in effect, by you declaring your religion, or lack thereof, you seem to be actively seeking the opportunity to be offended.
If I truly have freedom of religion, then I should also be free of others imposing their religion on me by way of the goverment.
Not sure what you mean by declaring my religion, which I haven't done. Anyway, have you heard of the phrase "Slippery slope?" Today, its a fairly benign rock with the 10Cs on it, but if we let this in, what will it be tomorrow? I do not wish to see any of creep of religion into our system, even if it seems harmless; it isn't.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:06 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
The slippery slope argument, is an avowed logical fallacy and therefore, not relevant. Oh, Jung, the Alabama thing, is NOT the US constitution which I think my friend Sauron asked for. A minor point, but a valid one.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
|
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:32 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by corwin
The slippery slope argument, is an avowed logical fallacy and therefore, not relevant. Oh, Jung, the Alabama thing, is NOT the US constitution which I think my friend Sauron asked for. A minor point, but a valid one.
Would you care to point to me the place where Sauron asked for the US Constitution? He also argued that the states had sway in this matter, so that is what I quoted him.
It may be a logical falacy, but not an impossible scenario. I am giving my reasons to be concerned over this issue. Although I suspect Sauron is here mostly to argue, I feel that you are here to post your opinion on this issue. I wonder what your opinion would be if a goverment official of some other religious persuasion placed their religious symbols in a courthouse or goverment building. No big deal?
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:01 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
I was referring to this statement:
Would you care to point to me the Amendment in the Constitution that clearly defines the Separation of Church and State? No common law rulings, please.
Yes, you are correct, Sauron enjoys a good argument. Where I live, it's not illegal to display religious artifacts. Doesn't bother me. It's a display and nothing else. It doesn't impinge on either me or the law. I personally consider the whole matter very trivial, but I enjoy a good debate too.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
|
|
Thu Sep 04, 2003 7:04 am |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
If it's a just display of a religious artifact then there shouldn't be an issue removing it for those who think it's more than that and have some serious trouble with it being there.
Even though the constitution apparently doesn't say I have freedom from religion I do wonder why that is. It should be possible for me to enter a public (non-religious) building without getting the impression that those working there favor a religion that is not mine.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Thu Sep 04, 2003 7:52 am |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
An elected official whose job it is to interpret the law and whose judgements carry the force of law, but is now showing extremely poor judgement by ignoring the law and is using his power to promote religion where it doesn't belong.
What the people want is what he is doing or trying to do.
quote:
But religion is inherent by the very nature of the monument.
Which one? Oh, that's right. Two. The Jews and Christians. Frankly, the shorthand version of those 10C's is very different from the Latin Catholic shorthand version. Would Protestants be favoured over me?
quote:
A court is a place intimately associated with law, therefore should not be associated with religion of any form.
A court is associated with justice, the administration of law. The buildings of Congress are associated with law.
quote:
It says attend, not view. Accused, jurors and witnesses are compelled by law to attend trials in a building that now has a prominent symbol of a particular religion. if it isn't being worshiped, then why are these people so up in arms about it being removed? What do you think the response would be if I took a sledgehammer to it?
By compelled, I meant potentially with non-optional police escort. And, if I'm not mistaken, the Monument was fenced off by velvet rope-age. Personally, that would make a wonderful border between sanctum sanctorum and common grounds. Secondly, we've already established that all jurors are illiterate, so they shouldn't be offended by the thing... unless of course they don't like the shape of the tablet carrying the words. Witnesses are not compelled to give live testimony. William H. Gates III gave live witness via television when Microsoft had an anti-trust thing happening.
There is, in Christianity, a difference between adoration for God alone, veneration for the Saints and Mary (although Mary is higher up the totem pole), and other stuff. If you want me to look up the Latin of each one, I could, but I'm not doing it on my own prerogative.
If you were to destroy it, you would be charged with public mischief, vandalism, and a dozen other misdemeanours. And without doubt, be given the harshest possible penalties under the law. 
quote:
What difference would that be?
The Monument serves only as a reminder to something else. (There are no tithes or anything like that. It's semantics, but if you wanted to, we could go down that road.)
quote:
If I truly have freedom of religion, then I should also be free of others imposing their religion on me by way of the goverment.
How is it being imposed? The mental distress bit only works when you spill hot coffee in your lap.
You don't have utter freedom of speech nor freedom of the press, either.
e.g.'s a) There are some people who are trying to take down this Monument in a courthouse in Alabama. Ever heard about it, eh? b) Your governement can classifly something so that it never sees the light of day.
If you want to fight for rights, start with those. They have practical applications.
quote:
Oh, Jung, the Alabama thing, is NOT the US constitution which I think my friend Sauron asked for. A minor point, but a valid one.
I know that. The Constitution, however, is the most powerful piece of American Law, and it doesn't have absolute power over religious matters in the States because it limits itself. And the lack of any of what I was asking for in and of itself is rather damning, dont'cha think?
quote:
Although I suspect Sauron is here mostly to argue
Pugnacious little runt I am... "Everyone's thinking it, I'm just saying it."
quote:
for those who think it's more than that and have some serious trouble with it being there.
Is one in ten enough? One in one-hundred? One in a thousand? That's giving power to a group that makes up much less than the majority. This may be zealous representation, but I always thought that it had to be six of ten, fifty-one of one-hundred, five-hundred one of a thousand in a Democracy.
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:31 pm |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
Which one? Oh, that's right. Two. The Jews and Christians. Frankly, the shorthand version of those 10C's is very different from the Latin Catholic shorthand version. Would Protestants be favoured over me?
It's not relevant to which religion it applies. From my point of view what religion or how many religiosn the 10C's belong to is irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
A court is associated with justice, the administration of law. The buildings of Congress are associated with law.
*shrugs* so what?
quote:
Secondly, we've already established that all jurors are illiterate, so they shouldn't be offended by the thing... unless of course they don't like the shape of the tablet carrying the words.
I believe you established that by yourself and found yourself to be better than the average juror to name them that. Just in case you implied all who replied here in the 'we' then I disagree. Maybe we have some 'illiterate' forum members who who can back you up on this.
However, if they are or not, I fail to see how all of this is relevant especially as if they really are all illiterate as you claim, then that would have me worried more for how they interprete the relation between the law and religion.
quote:
Pugnacious little runt I am... "Everyone's thinking it, I'm just saying it."
Everyone? Do the others know that you are their spokesperson?
quote:
Is one in ten enough? One in one-hundred? One in a thousand? That's giving power to a group that makes up much less than the majority. This may be zealous representation, but I always thought that it had to be six of ten, fifty-one of one-hundred, five-hundred one of a thousand in a Democracy.
Passing a law doesn't require a majority of citizens to agree. There are laws protecting minority groups. Are you saying that that as long as the majority of people do not disagree everything is allowed? and that thus the minority has no voice.
I actually don't have a clue on which side of the medal the majority is. I don't care either. I have no need for religious symbols in my life and I don't expect to find them in a court house, for all the reasons I already gave.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
