No Ten Commandments
We were warned that one day, Christians would be considered haters to be despised and ostracized.
This was the “one small leap for Satan, one giant leap for Satan-kind”
Tack on the “Takings” rule and I promise you within the year churches will be taken or threatened with takings over the removal of all exterior symbols and payment of taxes.
Next comes monitoring of Christian groups for “offensive or seditious” conduct.
Wait and see.
We can now see the opening to the black tunnel of darkest part of Revelations.
Christians must be prepared to suffer for their faith. Jesus said it, Peter said it and Paul said it.
The way this Court is going, blood WILL BE SPILLED. The decision last week, with this one, pissing on the Ten Commandments, is getting me very upset.
That thing witht eminent domain - there will come a time when the county board is gonna have to ask itself, “is this worth getting some cops and maybe some citizens killed over?”
I sincerely wish that the president would FUCKING DO SOMETHING! Like first off, tell Republicans in the Senate to just change the filibuster rules RIGHT NOW in anticipation of SCOTUS nominations, so we can get them in ASAP. We need a solid majority on the court. Justice Stevens (spit) is like 85 years old - I hope he dies.
Can’t W just tell the Army to go and forcibly stop a move to enforce the Kelo vs New London Decision?
Lets really spool up the libs...push for Thomas to become the next Chief Justice *grin*.
Let’s rename this august body to the Supreme Court Retards of the United States. SCROTUS is a more appropriate name for that sack of nuts.
Posted by Buckeye Kev
06/27/2005 at 11:56 AM
Ztucka, I’m for what you say. What is Frist waiting for? Strike while we can.
PS - Might run into posse comitatus problems with the Army suggestion..These endless court cases about religion don’t really need to be endless. The SCOTUS is able to sort it out but never does.
The solution is to impose strict legal scrutiny on new religous displays and let older ones drift into history. Existing displays, whether in courthouses, on library facades, in school mottos, etc. can be declared historical and passive. The test should be whether government is promoting new material or taking unusual steps to continue older displays.
Sooner or later public buildings are replaced. Some are razed, some pass to historical societies, non-profits, or even private hands. When the government has no further involvement the display can be dealt with according to the new owners wish.
Defining a stricter test for new work or unnecessary preservation is absolutely within the SCOTUS powers by nature of their authority over all lesser courts. Then lower court judges will have clear guidelines and these quarrels will not continue for decades.
I am more or less an atheist but religion displays don’t bother me at all. By simply stopping new government references they will eventually vanish.
Posted by KenS
06/27/2005 at 06:19 PM
I am prone to agree with an idea I heard expressed today--to the effect that if we pickle the Ten Commandments in a bottle of urine and call it “art,” we might display them in the courthouse or anywhere else with no great fuss.
Heaven help us, we might even be regarded as “intellectuals.”
So much for the burned-out lights of this age and time.
Hat tip to Hannity.
Ken,
You offer very interesting commentary. I find a slight dichotomy in your opening statement about ‘endless court cases about religion’ and ‘The solution is to impose strict legal scrutiny on new religious displays...’. Religion in our country is a constant dynamic, and I don’t believe it will ever settle down to the point that any court can define the line between ‘new’ and ‘historical’. Defining a strict test for new work or unnecessary preservation with the dynamic of our multiple freedoms of religion might cause much more work for the courts.
Just for an example, at some prisons prisoners are demanding the right and accoutrements for their religion of Satanism. The prison must provide for this. In effect, any ‘new’ religion can materialize and make the same demands on our government, and those demands will have to be met.
What is most disturbing about this whole thing is that it has less to do with religion than with politically correct mysticism trying to vaporize exigent tradition. A country falters when it dismisses its traditions in favor of progressive ideology. The EU is a perfect example of this. The justices who voted in favor of keeping the Ten Commandments believe fully that tradition and progress can work side-by-side; and they are certainly the most progressive thinkers on the court.
Posted by Phoenix
06/27/2005 at 06:58 PM
re: Phoenix #9. agree with much you say.
My point was that the strict scrutiny would be used on anything done after a given date. That would discourage attempts to trash the past just because someone believes differently today. Just agree that people can be unhappy, it needn’t be a court case.
Unnecessary or unusual preservation is tougher. But courts constantly decide what is “more probable than not.” If future government actions attemp “more probably than not” to aid or promote religion by funding specific restoration or renovation then the court can stop it.
The SC can’t quiet these issues by deciding what is religion v. history, or what is a reasonable display, or what might offend someone, or what might balance every view. It is utterly impossible.
And yet the court continues to screw around for decades in that fog. They supervise the lower courts and should provide clear guidelines. The clearest one I can think of is fixing a date.
Posted by KenS
06/27/2005 at 07:47 PM
It certainly looks these days like “progressives” and those who could be considered truly “liberal” are those of us on the right. Classical Liberals, that is. Those who claim to be liberal are anything but. MORE government restrictions on religious expression, MORE power to the government to take away propery (on a whim basically), MORE restrictions on how states can regulate marijuana - even when those “medical pot” laws passed referenda in those states. Just in the last couple of weeks. Go figure. “Liberals” in America today are NOT liberal. This is exceedingly sinister. This is my theme and I have commented on this before. When will people wake up to this? I think a lot of people, especially the younger generation, just like the sound of being “liberal.” Sounds nice doesn’t it? I think many people don’t realy think about what the left stands for. Conservatives/Republicans have gotten smeared so bad that young people have a knee-jerk disdain for us. When I talk to my peers, mostly people in their early 30’s, I carefully explain that to be “liberal” is not really liberal. I mean if you’re a “liberal,” you don’t really beleive in more liberties. Those on the right stand for more freedoms, really, and Phoenix touched on this in her comment.
Insofar as this Ten Commandment thing is concerned, Alan Keyes put it very succinctly back when Roy Moore and that thing in Alabama was playing out in Spring of ‘04 - He points out that the first amendment expressly prohibits the Federal Government from even TOUCHING anything to do with religion. If someone wants to express themselves, even on the grounds of a courthouse, you gotta let ‘em.
You guys are all great.”...push for Thomas to become the next Chief Justice.” I think he would be a fairly good one, Guy. He has already stated that there are quite a few decisions that really should be revisited.
BTW, Tann, I am just finishing up with ‘Atlas Shrugged’. Next and recommended reading from a source near and dear is ‘The Road To Surfdom’ by Hayek.
Posted by imp
06/27/2005 at 09:44 PM
ztucka,
Excellent points on ‘Classic liberals’ vs. ‘liberals’. The classic liberal is one who is tolerant, open-minded, willing and open to progress. They favor reform when necessary but do not want to crush individual freedoms. The word has been hijacked to mean something very different from its original meaning.
Bush’s call for each individual to pull himself up by the bootstraps/individual pride to build up this country is all about more freedom. The other side would keep individuals locked-in unable to experience those freedoms if for no other reason than they don’t have to because they’re ‘entitled’ not to.
Posted by Phoenix
06/27/2005 at 10:08 PM
Tanny, imp,
Have either of you read “Civilization and Its Enemies” by Lee Harris?
Posted by Phoenix
06/27/2005 at 10:09 PM
I’ve heard good things about Harris, Phoenix, but I haven’t got around to it yet. I’ll bump it up on my pending list.
Congratulations, Imp, and the Hayek book is also on my pending list.
Kindest regards to both of you. It’s a pleasure to be associated with you.
Phoenix, No i have not read that yet, but i’m guessing it’s a good read if you are mentioning it, so will put it on my list. Thanks!
And while on the OT of books, I am looking to purchase a copy of “Democracy in America” by Alexes De Tocqueville (sp?) I believe it comes in 2 volumes, but couldn’t swear to it.
I’m told it’s out of print, and I have looked for it in the usual suspected places, ie E-Bay, “old book” stores and such. Anybody have an idea as to where else i might find a copy of this jewel? Thanks!
Posted by imp
06/28/2005 at 07:54 AM
"Slaps flat forehead” (in my best Gilda Radner voice) NEVER MIND on “Democracy in America”. I found it! Yayyyyyeee!
Posted by imp
06/28/2005 at 09:33 AM
Imp, I’d also recommend any of Paul Johnson’s works, beginning with “Modern Times” and “Intellectuals.” Hang in there.
Thanks, Tann, you’re very kind. (adds those to my list)
Posted by imp
06/28/2005 at 10:43 AM
Imp,
Prepare yourself if you dare to touch a Paul Johnson.
You will experience such intense pleasure reading his fascinating historical works that when one of his tomes ends, you will become depressed. But you will be SO much wiser. This man is beyond exemplary. As well, as you work your way through his multi volumes, you will scratch your head and wonder “HOW DOES HE DO THIS???” Truly amazing....... Oh, and he has a great sense of humor that subtly works its way through his writing.
Posted by Phoenix
06/28/2005 at 12:17 PM
Next entry: Hillary Says 'NO' To Freedom Of Speech
Previous entry: Greasy Greed And Nukes