Court slaps down ACLU

[JennyMominRI]

do not alot of societys laws come directly from the ten commandments? are they not what keeps society from delving into chaos?

I can only think of 2 that are encoded in law the one about murder and the one about killing,and those are certainly not *laws* restricted to Christians but laws that are based on survival as a society

 

[JennyMominRI]

Exactly, that is the point, only governments based on Judeo-Christianity have the freedom not to recognize one religion over another...you do get it, don't you?

Tim McVeigh, a Christian? Hardly, just because he was white, male, and of European heritage? Christian cult extremist possibly, but please...over 70% of the US population consider themselves "Christian" however, only about a quarter or less of the population can define what being a "Christian" means, and a good percentage of those, then, don't consider themselves Christian. (Barna research)

Made no implications whatsoever about "Muslim nations;" that's your doing. I just merely asked where you would prefer to live. Yes, we have corruption, scandals, political killings here in the US, but they so pale against practices condoned in the countries you don't want to compare to the US, it's not even a blib.

-R

The laws of this country aren't even remotely based on Jewish law.
I really dislike the term Judeo Christian and find it ironic that though I often here Christians say,Judeo-Christian,I rarely see Jews say it

 

[Judge Smails]

Made no implications whatsoever about "Muslim nations;" that's your doing. I just merely asked where you would prefer to live. Yes, we have corruption, scandals, political killings here in the US, but they so pale against practices condoned in the countries you don't want to compare to the US, it's not even a blib.

-R

Have you ever visited or lived in a country whose laws were "based" on the Koran?

Actually that would be your "doing".

 

[Judge Smails]

That's not the thread for this...if you would like I'll PM you, but we're talking here about the ACLU and federal government intrusion into state laws (and a few asides about the Ten Commendments, Code of Hammurabi, and their place in society, etc.).

Sorry, your venom is your own...

-R

What we're talking about here is Church and State. Why can't you define what being a good Christian is on a thread that clearly has religous undertones?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Agreebly true, and yet I have seen a number of courts displaying the Magna Carta as well (though the details are indecipherable). But that might be recognizable more because the US population still has a greater percentage of British ancestry. The Code is harder since even though it's well known in the academic world, the average citizen would just look at it and say, "huh?" Plus, I've never heard a lawyer/attorney or judge quote from the Code of Hammurabi in the arguments or rulings but there are many opinions and references in US laws quoted from the MC.

I understand. I suppose my preference that the 10 Commandments not be displayed stems more from the fact that on one level they define the religious beliefs of Judaism and subsequently Christianity, and on another level, as you indicated, define morality, not legality. While the 10 Commandments may be a source for our laws, it is not the only one or even a primary one. I don't believe that in our secular society and especially in our judicial system that we should elevate the Decalogue like this.

However, again this is an issue that should be decided by each state and KY seems to think that this is acceptable. OTOH, my preference would be that the KY legislators decide this as elected representatives of the people rather than the judiciary.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

I just wonder why we have to keep wasting tax dollars on the same old bull over and over again. This has only been decided about a million and a half times but everyone wants another try at it.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I just wonder why we have to keep wasting tax dollars on the same old bull over and over again. This has only been decided about a million and a half times but everyone wants another try at it.

The same could be said for many issues. Why do we keep rehashing some of the same "discussions" on the DIS repeatedly? Part of it is that we find different nuances to explore. But a big part is that there will always be areas of disagreement and there will always be those with a need to "win" their argument or have the last word. (But that's not me! )

 

[Judge Smails]

I just wonder why we have to keep wasting tax dollars on the same old bull over and over again. This has only been decided about a million and a half times but everyone wants another try at it.

Correct.

And we'll waste some more $$$ next week when this gets overturned.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

The same could be said for many issues. Why do we keep rehashing some of the same "discussions" on the DIS repeatedly? Part of it is that we find different nuances to explore. But a big part is that there will always be areas of disagreement and there will always be those with a need to "win" their argument or have the last word. (But that's not me! )

I know...but I'm still tired of hearing about the overclogged court system. Loser pays starts to sound better and better!

 

[rigs32]

I know...but I'm still tired of hearing about the overclogged court system. Loser pays starts to sound better and better!

Because most of these threads go down a road like this eventually, I'll bite.

Many people who advocate for limits on lawsuits are conservative and identify as republican. So, should terri schiavo's parents have paid for all the appeals they filed? (as more conservatives identified with the parents)

Our court system is set up such that a court can refuse to hear a case if it is improper.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

The laws of this country aren't even remotely based on Jewish law.
I really dislike the term Judeo Christian and find it ironic that though I often here Christians say,Judeo-Christian,I rarely see Jews say it

Probably should have said "derived from" instead of "based on" but aside from that slip, I would argue that there is an almost direct connection between ancient Jewish law and US laws.

As has been said, US laws are based almost entirely on a combination of British law (give or take a few oddities) and an idealized ancient Greco-Roman form of government. British laws mostly developed and were derived from the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta, though very much a civil instrument, held authority through the English version of the "divine right of kings" held in check by secular authorities both of which were bound by the Christian Bible. The Christian Bible contains both the Old and New Testements. Though Christians understood that Christ fulfilled the spiritual responsibilities of the Judaic law he didn't negate the relational laws with how we deal with problems between members of a society. Admittedly, the judaic laws covering the government of society are very similar to the Code of Hammurabi however the Bible itself does not list the Code of Hammurabi as the basis for its government. Ergo, whether you can trace a specific US law back to ancient judaic law is secondary to the fact that framers of the US judicial system supported the initial laws through quoting scripture. We've definitely come along way from that haven't we?

I wouldn't expect a Jew to ever use the phrase "Judeo-Christian" since it is Christians that use the phrase to incorporate both. Originally, Christianity was a sect of Judaism that was very quickly disbarred by orthodox Jews because what Christianity claimed was heretical to the first century priests (and still is). However, orthodox/traditional Christianity still recognizes they are an extension of Judaism and therefore, hyphenate the two beliefs because of their common religious roots.

Unfortunately, regardless of whether you like it or not, the phrase has been used for a long time and will probably be used for the next two hundred years, though it does seem to be outside fashion at the current time. I don't see that as being ironic though.

-R

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I know...but I'm still tired of hearing about the overclogged court system. Loser pays starts to sound better and better!

Loser pays might help some, but I despair of it doing any serious artery-cleaning in the courts. There are too many well-funded groups intent on continuing the litigation until they "win" or until you-know-where freezes over. They have too many lawyers willing to "discover" some new way to twist the issue or file one more appeal. And if all else fails, Judge Roy Moore is more than willing to mount his trusty steed and ride to the "rescue" again.

Sadly, we just have to get used to "there they go again..."

 

[WebmasterAlex]

Because most of these threads go down a road like this eventually, I'll bite.

Many people who advocate for limits on lawsuits are conservative and identify as republican. So, should terri schiavo's parents have paid for all the appeals they filed? (as more conservatives identified with the parents)

Our court system is set up such that a court can refuse to hear a case if it is improper.

ABSOLUTELY they should have!!! That was ridiculous! While technically the court CAN refuse as a practical matter it hardly ever happens. It did happen in the very late stages of the Schiavo case and it should happen a lot more in all cases, conservative or liberal. I think idiotic court cases could be a cross party thing

 

[JennyMominRI]

.

Unfortunately, regardless of whether you like it or not, the phrase has been used for a long time and will probably be used for the next two hundred years, though it does seem to be outside fashion at the current time. I don't see that as being ironic though.

-R

I view it as Ironic becuse many christians assume that Jewish law reflects christian values..They often assume that Jews view abortion , homosexuality, Sp of Church and state etc in the same way that they do,when the reality is that the views are often not just different but at opposite ends of the spectrum.. Obviously this is a generalization and does NOT apply to all Jews or all Christians or even to you, who seems more knowledgable than many on these issues.. This is not a slam at Christians..They have no reason to learn or understand Jewish theology.
I can't give an opinion on this particular case,I don't know enough

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Many people who advocate for limits on lawsuits are conservative and identify as republican. So, should terri schiavo's parents have paid for all the appeals they filed? (as more conservatives identified with the parents)

Our court system is set up such that a court can refuse to hear a case if it is improper.

Not sure I would advocate placing some arbitrary limit on lawsuits; I'm not comfortable with limiting anyone's right to seek justice or redress. I do believe that Terri Schiavo's parents should have paid for the appeals they filed, just as anyone who files suit should bear the cost of doing so.

I agree with WM Alex's idea of "loser pays", because I think this MIGHT make a small number of people stop and think before they rush to retain a lawyer to file yet another lawsuit. It might do more than the court's are doing in refusing absurd cases to reduce, however small, the load of cases to be adjudicated. Sometimes the only way to truly educate people is by hitting them where it hurts -- financially.

However, in cases or issues like this one, I doubt that even "loser pays" would stop or even slow down the litigation. As mentioned earlier, issues like this have well-funded groups behind them willing to invest in their beliefs. And it's the price we pay for considering the Constitution a "living breathing document." Instead of simply interpreting it, the states have allowed the courts (and gov't.) to grow it.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

I view it as Ironic becuse many christians assume that Jewish law reflects christian values..They often assume that Jews view abortion , homosexuality, Sp of Church and state etc in the same way that they do,when the reality is that the views are often not just different but at opposite ends of the spectrum.. Obviously this is a generalization and does NOT apply to all Jews or all Christians or even to you, who seems more knowledgable than many on these issues.. This is not a slam at Christians..They have no reason to learn or understand Jewish theology.
I can't give an opinion on this particular case,I don't know enough

I agree, and you're right unfortunately, Christians do know very little about Jewish law, they/we tend to read the Bible from back to front and overlay New Testament theology onto Old Testament practices which makes it more difficult to understand outside the context of Christian beliefs (especially American Christianity).

One admission I have to make is that I respect how, in general, Jews tend to only really want just to be left alone to practice their faith whereas American Christianity has to prove how great and "right" it is! It really is too sad, since if Christianity does have the Truth, then it really doesn't have to be nor can it be "proved."

How does this relate to the ACLU case...if Christians, who tend to be more conservative, want others (including the ACLU) to respect the authority of the government, then they/we need to as well.

-R

 

[Lord Fantasius]

Loser pays might help some, but I despair of it doing any serious artery-cleaning in the courts. There are too many well-funded groups intent on continuing the litigation until they "win" or until you-know-where freezes over. They have too many lawyers willing to "discover" some new way to twist the issue or file one more appeal. And if all else fails, Judge Roy Moore is more than willing to mount his trusty steed and ride to the "rescue" again.

Sadly, we just have to get used to "there they go again..."

True, unfortunately every case and opinion then becomes precedent for another, and so on, and so on... Each year, the reference material for lawyers/attorneys grows exponentialy so cases don't always come down on common sense or fundamental undestandings of the law, except when before the Supreme Court, but rather whosever side can dredge up the most and earliest opinions that supports their case wins!

Would it surprise you, Tigger_Magic or Judge_Smails, that I disapproved of Judge Moore's actions?

-R

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

the ACLU can kiss my Smurf. It's about time a judge in this country had the stones to tell them to go pound sand.

Very well said!

I'm tired of them tried to scrub every once of God from this nation's public institutions and traditions and tired of their numerous attacks on private groups, such as the Boy Scouts.

If they really had any stones, they would take their circus act into foreign countries and "really" fight for freedoms.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Very well said!

I'm tired of them tried to scrub every once of God from this nation's public institutions and traditions and tired of their numerous attacks on private groups, such as the Boy Scouts.

If they really had any stones, they would take their circus act into foreign countries and "really" fight for freedoms.

The question I asked earlier still stands....why do people oppose an organization whose function is to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

 

[Judge Smails]

Very well said!

I'm tired of them tried to scrub every once of God from this nation's public institutions and traditions and tired of their numerous attacks on private groups, such as the Boy Scouts.

If they really had any stones, they would take their circus act into foreign countries and "really" fight for freedoms.

Just like you, right Joe? I'm assuming you're posting this from Iraq.