Alabama to vote on a 10 Commandments amendment

knitepoetknitepoet Senior MemberPosts: 18,207 Senior Member
Amendment 1 on November's ballot is "The 10 Commandments Amendment"

Here's what it says.

“Property belonging to the state may be used to display the Ten Commandments, and the right of the public school and public body to display the Ten Commandments on property owned or administrated by a public school or public body in the state is not restrained or abridged.”

Going to be interesting to see how this plays out

http://www.tencommandmentsamendment.com/#amendment

https://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2018/04/dean_young_resurfaces_to_tout.html



Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


«1

Replies

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 24,173 Senior Member
    The atheists and the Freedom From Religion group most likely already have their torches, pitchforks, and LAWSUITS already gathered up and ready for the onslaught. You're right about saying it's going to be interesting.
    I may be a Deplorable, but at least I'm not a Liberal!!!



  • cpjcpj Senior Member Posts: 39,174 Senior Member
    I hope it fails miserably. 
    If not, they best make room for EVERY religion in the world to display their words in public property. 
    "I'm here for the guns, hunting, and skirt wearing men."
    Zee
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,450 Senior Member
    I am starting to think this guy behind it, Dean Young, is on the Democrat's payroll. He did one hell of a job for Democrats with Roy Moore's senate campaign last year, now he is back at it.
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,259 Senior Member
    cpj said:
    I hope it fails miserably. 
    If not, they best make room for EVERY religion in the world to display their words in public property. 

    They can have their God on public property as long as I can have my guns there too.

    It will probably pass and get thrown out by a federal court hence wasting a ton of tax dollars.

    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,207 Senior Member
    BAMAAK said:

    It will probably pass and get thrown out by a federal court hence wasting a ton of tax dollars.
    Probably
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 17,955 Senior Member
    cpj said:
    I hope it fails miserably. 
    If not, they best make room for EVERY religion in the world to display their words in public property. 
    That's right. The Decalogue has nothing to do with US laws - some of it is good ethics that can be found in a variety of other places as well; the rest of it doesn't have anything to do with anything other than Abrahamic Monotheists. Thus it doesn't apply to anyone else.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 2,474 Senior Member
    Thou shalt not coveat thy neighborhoods commons?
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,450 Senior Member
    Personally, it doesn't bother me at all. In a historical context, I can appreciate the Ten Commandments as an early form of codified law. Where we get into trouble is like Chris brought up... does this open the door to requiring Koranic verses that outline Sharia law to be displayed in government buildings? What do the people that support this think of that? Is religious freedom only acceptable if you are Christian? And if so, does it mean that by making religious freedom acceptable only for Christians, did you now establish a state religion (that is prohibited by the 1st Amendment)?

    It sounds like a big can of worms to me, but like I said... 10C being displayed doesn't bother me a bit.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 17,955 Senior Member
    How about "The Charge of the Goddess"?

    (Not mine either, and even if it were, I'd object on the same basis).
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,207 Senior Member
    I'll be honest, I just heard about this today, and I haven't decided how I feel about it.
    My initial leaning is to oppose it
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,207 Senior Member
    edited July 8 #12
    double-tap
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,355 Senior Member
    I don't care if the 10C is displayed anywhere and everywhere...IF:

    1 - Don't use tax dollars to install the tablets, and 
    2 - Don't try to legally enforce the commandments on me.  
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 17,955 Senior Member
    CaliFFL said:
    I don't care if the 10C is displayed anywhere and everywhere...IF:

    1 - Don't use tax dollars to install the tablets, and 
    2 - Don't try to legally enforce the commandments on me.  
    Problem is, the same crowd that wants this legalized will try #2.

    It'll get shot down by the Feds anyway, and rightfully so.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,355 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    The atheists and the Freedom From Religion group most likely already have their torches, pitchforks, and LAWSUITS already gathered up and ready for the onslaught. You're right about saying it's going to be interesting.

    This kills me...I am an atheist to the core, and I demand freedom from religion, but these groups could spend their efforts litigating against actual religious-based laws. I remember some groups trying to get "In god we trust" removed from money. What a waste of money. 
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 17,955 Senior Member
    Oh, our phony, so-called "National Motto"?

    It was originally "E Pluribus Unum".
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,355 Senior Member
    Or adding "under god" to the Pledge of Allegiance...
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 24,173 Senior Member
    IF you believe in the Constitution AND the original meaning contained in the 1st Amendment, then you don't have a leg to stand on concerning this prohibition thing. The establishment clause meant that the Congress could not make any particular religion the only recognized one, like in England at the time with the Anglican Church. Congress is also prohibited from interfering in church affairs, the free exercise clause. They've done both. As to opening the door to other religions, that was done WITH THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION containing the first amendment. If you read anything to the contrary in the first amendment, then you fail to understand the amendment. NOTHING in the first amendment would prohibit other religions from posting their religious laws in the same manner as the 10 commandments; not one danged thing.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    I may be a Deplorable, but at least I'm not a Liberal!!!



  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 17,955 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    NOTHING in the first amendment would prohibit other religions from posting their religious laws in the same manner as the 10 commandments; not one danged thing.

    If it works out that way, I have no problem with it. Let's start with the Delphic Commandments, all 147 of them - which (mostly) are a far better guide to ethics than the Decalogue is.

    But I'm not holding my breathe.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • cpjcpj Senior Member Posts: 39,174 Senior Member
    Hey Mike....I’ll kiss your ass AND buy you dinner if they let a satanist place a pentagram on the courthouse lawn. 
    "I'm here for the guns, hunting, and skirt wearing men."
    Zee
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,450 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    IF you believe in the Constitution AND the original meaning contained in the 1st Amendment, then you don't have a leg to stand on concerning this prohibition thing. The establishment clause meant that the Congress could not make any particular religion the only recognized one, like in England at the time with the Anglican Church. Congress is also prohibited from interfering in church affairs, the free exercise clause. They've done both. As to opening the door to other religions, that was done WITH THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION containing the first amendment. If you read anything to the contrary in the first amendment, then you fail to understand the amendment. NOTHING in the first amendment would prohibit other religions from posting their religious laws in the same manner as the 10 commandments; not one danged thing.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Hey... that is cool. There is no problem plastering Koranic verses on the county court house walls then. I am all for equality and tolerance! But I am wondering if the same people that support 10C being there do?
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,141 Senior Member

    Hmmmmm- - - - -the Sikh religion mandates that the members of that sect carry a ceremonial dagger.  If we organize the "Church of John Moses Browning" why shouldn't we mandate that all our members carry a cocked and locked 1911?  We could even condemn Glockophiles and other Tupperware gun carriers as heretics and demand that they be burned at the stake!

     

    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 9,806 Senior Member
    Sikh male kids in school carry a fake dagger.  Handle only to comply with US school laws. So it's legal.  I'm opposed to wasting energy and votes on something that is bound to be struck down in a higher court.  It's just dumb.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 17,955 Senior Member
    Teach said:

    ...If we organize the "Church of John Moses Browning" why shouldn't we mandate that all our members carry a cocked and locked 1911?  We could even condemn Glockophiles and other Tupperware gun carriers as heretics and demand that they be burned at the stake!

     

    AMEN BROTHER! Preach it!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,231 Senior Member
    edited July 9 #25
    tennmike said:
    IF you believe in the Constitution AND the original meaning contained in the 1st Amendment, then you don't have a leg to stand on concerning this prohibition thing. The establishment clause meant that the Congress could not make any particular religion the only recognized one, like in England at the time with the Anglican Church. Congress is also prohibited from interfering in church affairs, the free exercise clause. They've done both. As to opening the door to other religions, that was done WITH THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION containing the first amendment. If you read anything to the contrary in the first amendment, then you fail to understand the amendment. NOTHING in the first amendment would prohibit other religions from posting their religious laws in the same manner as the 10 commandments; not one danged thing.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    The supreme Court has long since held that the Constitution applies not just to the federal government but also to the states (this benefits us greatly from a 2A protection perspective btw). 

    As for the specific law, it seems to be inching very close to the establishment of a state religion in that it calls out specific religious texts and says that they're ok, while prohibiting all others. If it were a true religious freedom law then it should allow that any and all religious texts or symbols could be put up in such locations and it that case by all means, but as others have suggested no one really wants that.

    That said, I'm having a hard time caring about these sorts of things. Especially in places like Alabama.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 665 Senior Member
    Call me an ass, but when a satanist, atheist, Islamist, etc.... says
    ”So I guess we should have the right to put our religious texts out too”?

    Um, no. Sorry about your luck but you ARE in the minority whether you want to recognize it or not.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 24,173 Senior Member
    In other words, all y'all are all about freedom, until freedom confronts you head-on. Freedom is messy; freedom isn't a menu where you pick from Column A, B, C, etc., and reject the rest because it is disagreeable. Put up those ideas and let the people decide to accept or to reject them. But to ignore, or worse, to censor isn't anything about freedom of expression, of religion or anything else.

    I can see why most of the objections are there. Cops, lawyers, and judges work in the courthouses, and having the 10 Commandments posted where they would be working would create a hostile work environment.
    I may be a Deplorable, but at least I'm not a Liberal!!!



  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 2,474 Senior Member
    Isn't there quite a big important difference between the state putting up those ideas for public consumption at the government commons and a private citizen or group of said doing it???
  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 665 Senior Member
    edited July 9 #29
    Don’t get me wrong, I frankly couldn’t care any less than I already do, but this country has been twirling downward ever since the folks that are supposed to make laws and set an example started pandering to the minority instead of listening to the voice of the majority. The answer would be to not display anything but the sad truth that some people don’t want to acknowledge is that Christianity is of the majority at the moment. And it’s safe to say that having Sharia written on a government building is quite different than the 10 commandments.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,450 Senior Member
    The deal is we have a constitutional republic. While our republic is a form of democracy, it accounts for defending the rights of minorities. If we had a direct democracy, you would be correct and the majority would rule, but that doesn't apply to us. The result is that the majority doesn't always rule.

    Our constitution protects Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Personally, I am an ordained minister with the Universal Life Church Ministries. So while 1A may apply to Christians, it also applies to the rest of us equally. Sadly, it even protects the Westboro Baptists, but they have rights just like the rest of us.
  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 665 Senior Member
    I also agree, but somehow I’m getting lost in translating the fact that we are a predominantly Christian nation, and folks are gonna have a bias (hence this thread topic), whether they wanna admit it or not. Geez. When I was talking about pandering to the minority, I more had in mind the government bending over backwards for the half of a half percent of people that wanted to be able to have gender neutral bathrooms and all that other silly ****.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.