SCOTUS will consider Ten Commandements Case!

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Sava
this Roy Moore ******* is just trying to get attention and pander to the ultra-religious-right-wing fools...

You're right, Sava. He's trying to set himself up for a gubernatorial run with his recent comments on Alabama's proposed Amendment 2. It's not his case the SCOTUS is going to hear, though.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


My hindu is quite far but I think there are 3 main ones.
Vishna Shiva and ??? Kali??
not sure about the last one...

Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Sustainer, Shiva the Destroyer..

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The point is that there are no pagans to be a threat (in the sense of people who worship Jupiter or Zeus), and that Greek and Roman gods aren't religious symbols anymore. There's no religious connection, just a mythological one - in effect, it's a literary allusion.

Actually there are. There are neo-pagans who variously worship different sets of gods depending on what kind of pagans there are. I have heard of pagans who follow the Geek deities, but I doubt they number more than a few hundred nationwide.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara I have heard of pagans who follow the Geek deities, but I doubt they number more than a few hundred nationwide.

Like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually there are. There are neo-pagans who variously worship different sets of gods depending on what kind of pagans there are. I have heard of pagans who follow the Geek deities, but I doubt they number more than a few hundred nationwide.

There are always a few loons. My point stands.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?

:rimshot:

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?

Why sure. You must have heard about worshipping the Almighty Dollar.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's not precisely a "statement" of values. A roman god simply isn't a religious symbol any more than an eagle or an olive branch is.

But why is it not a "religious" symbol? I contend it is because no one would view it that way. Thus, it is not the "intent" of the displayer which is critical, but the reaction of the public.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The court is probably sick of the hodgepodge of lower court rulings and wants to affirmatively reaffirm its 1980 decision. I can only see 3 justices who'd say it was ok.

The 1980 decision only directly appiled to certain goverment venues, shcools and a couple others. The main thrust of this case it will be intersting to see if this ruing is equally narrow with just courthouses, or more general to public property. I find the pro church priginated symbols advocate somewhat foolish to press the issue with the decalouge rather than some other symbol. Four of the ten commandments deal directly with religion and worship, rather than law/society in general. Fight with this symbol rather than some others is a losing strategy.

[Jon Shafer]

Just get rid of all the religious crap that has to do with the state. Christian, Muslim, pagan. No quarter, no bias.

[axi]

Actually there are. There are neo-pagans who variously worship different sets of gods depending on what kind of pagans there are. I have heard of pagans who follow the Geek deities, but I doubt they number more than a few hundred nationwide.

A good friend of mine is a dodekatheist, i.e. a worshipper of the ancient Greek pantheon. He is a philologist and in fact, a great number of pagans are actually scholars, intelligentsia. This type of people are harmless as sheep. Of course the rest of the (so called) pagans are plain fascists (and alot tend to be neonazis, since their aversion for christianity is usually followed by an even greater hate of judaism). There are quite a few pagan organisations in Greece and the archbishop is complaining that their influence is on the rise (Orthodox Christianity is a state religion here). Another friend of mine, during his military duty, met 2 of them on an outpost.

Too bad I haven't met with that pagan friend of mine since a couple of years. I think he went to Oxford, England, for a PhD. We always had lots and lots to talk about.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
But why is it not a "religious" symbol? I contend it is because no one would view it that way. Thus, it is not the "intent" of the displayer which is critical, but the reaction of the public.

There's a measure of both. If no one ever realizes it's a religious symbol, and nothing more is done, there really isn't any harm except the minor issue of however many tax dollars it cost. However, the harm really comes from the intent of the legislator.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
SCROTUM

Ted Striker

[Ned]

On one of the talk shows last night, an American religious leader was dicussing this case. He was very pessimistic. He said the Supremes seem to have been on a warpath against religion since 1960 and this had lead to a decline of morals in the US. Because of these cases, he said that the current election was extremely important to the religious as the next president would appoint up to four justices. He said he was disappoint that the issue was not discussed during any of the debates.

Bush has already declared himself on the issue of appointment to the Court. No litmus test.

I wonder where Kerry comes out on this issue?

[chequita guevara]

**** morals.