Can I put your knowledge into question? Xmas is a true and valid abbreviation of Christmas. In olden times, the Greek letter "X" (named "chi") was the abbreviation for Christ, hence "Xmas" was the abbreviation for "Christmas". Sort of like how some people abbreviate "birthday" as "b'day" It has never been a sign of disrespect nor has it ever been a way of removing Christ from Christmas. This is well known historically (and is discussed annually on this forum, if not many others). It seems odd that an intelligent person would still believe otherwise.
Well with that said... would or have you ever seen a church print or use Xmas in place of Christmas. Its XP or Xt that was a reference of Christ, also chi is a letter in the greek alphabet, which also has a meaning natural energy of universe. There are many out there that beleives Xmas does show disrespect for Christ thats not based on my opinion or so called lack of Faith. It shouldn't seem to odd I may have a few tools missing from the shed. :jester:
Clif, I have stated this for many years...this one is a big debate in our house because of my mother's friendship with Judge Moore. Please see attached link, to which I agree with and the following excerpt: But a lawsuit filed after the monument was put in place in 2001 argued that the massive stone marker constituted a government endorsement of Christianity. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... ." http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/ What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Moore broke the law even after his first court ruling he decided his interpretation and religion trumped the courts's ruling. Why would a defendant then think his ruling his correct if he rules against them? Why have courts? We could display documents from all religions but what about those who don't believe in religion? Do they not have rights? I believe the Constitution and all laws applying state clearly that our government should be separated from religion...that would apply to buildings, land, etc. When Moore displayed these same Commandments in his court in Etowah County, Alabama he violated our laws and he actually took pleasure in it. While my mother and others would say he did not I contend that while at our house his contempt and smugness was obvious to me. I do think my grandparents, rest their souls, would not think this was funny or cute in any way. Both sets being very religious believed in religious tolerance and following the law. While my father's father was more intolerant towards other races and religions I even believe that this man would understand breaking the law. Now, nativity displays could surely be placed at Christian churches and private land. Don't think anyone would complain if a religion expressed their celebration. I know I would not...but if I worked at a "supposedly" non-secular place I would certainly not expect any religious material as per our laws. Good morning, Sherry
The fact that the courts ruled against him does not mean that the courts were right in their ruling. Read the first amendment again... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... ." By forcing Judge Moore to remove his plaques, the court was effectively prohibiting Judge Moore's right to freely exercise his religion. You can't say on the one hand that Judge Moore's display of the Ten Commandments was the government establishing a religion and yet say that the courts ruling was not the government prohibiting a citizen's free exercise of a religion. Well, you can say it, but you would be wrong. The amendment doesn't say that a person's rights are taken away just because they work for the government. Then there is the ridiculous assertion that displaying the Ten Commandments is tantamount to establishing a religion. Do you honestly want me to believe that you feel the judge's posting of the Ten Commandments means that you would be subject to being thrown in prison of you did not believe in God? That simply doesn't make any sense.
You had better believe that I would be intimidated enough, whether believing in his God or not, to make him think I did so that his ruling would not be as harsh. I would believe that religion would make a big difference in a person like this' mind, wouldn't you? Think about it...being tried in a another countries' court and religious stuff posted would you really start praying to God aloud, if you wanted out? Sherry
Sherry, you are smarter than that. Why do you want to lie in public? You want me to believe that you feel that not knowing how religious the judge is is better than knowing?
Thanks for the compliment but my mind is way open on how judges actually make a decision. I always hope they go strictly by the law but one never knows. Talk later, Sherry
No, being human that are affected by things that affect them. But, again, posting the Ten Commandments or not doesn't really matter on whether or not a judge is going to rule kindly or harshly.
I can say that, and the Supreme Court has ruled that way. The disconnect here - what you repeatedly gloss over - is that the Judge's actions as a government official are the actions of the government. The Judge is perfectly free to place the ten commandments, or a statue of Zeus, on his own property. He could probably place the ten commandments and a statue of Zeus and other artifacts in a public place as a non-religious display. When acting in an official capacity, he cannot place a religious display in a public place, or approve such placement, as a religious display.
The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled does not mean it is right, correct or Constitutional. They are nine human beings and, as such, are subject to prejudices and emotion. In other words, they can be wrong. Just as the actions of the Supreme Court who has said that Judge Moore is prohibited from freely exercising his religion. The Constitution does not say in any way that working for the government means you have to give up worshipping your religion. As with Sherry A. Do you honestly expect me to believe that you would fear going to prison for not worshiping God just because a judge has the Ten Commandments posted in the courtroom?
He does not have to give up practicing his religion on his own time. When he does so in an official capacity, it is the government doing it. If he cannot do his job without violating his religious beliefs, he should get another job. Of course not. That's not the point.
No, He can exercise his religion he just cannot decorate his courtroom to reflect that religion. Strawman here as the Amendment says "respecting an establishment of religion". No, but the ability to express that religion is taken away while on the job as a governmental employee as the courts have indicated. This is the same way the right to free speech was limited by the same courts. Yes, it is and it is nothing stated anywhere ... other than your opposition position. No, nor is it in any way connected to the ruling or Constitutional question.
Actually, it DOES make it Constitutional regardless of your opinion because the Constitution gives that power to the USSC and ONLY the USSC to make such an interpretation. Now if there is another ammendment to change things you would be correct, but there has not and thus you are not. No, nor is preventing the decoration to be used preventing the judge from worshipping his/her religion.
Once again, when he can freely excercise his religion is not specified in the Constitution. Again, not stated in the Constitution.
So, once again, you're saing that if the Spurmem Court ruled that Mr. Bush was king of the United States until he died, then you would accept it as law because the Court said it's so? Get real. The fact that the court ruled does not make it true, right, nor contitutional.
How can the government do anything, ever, if not through human beings? Why would the Constitution have to state that acts of government employees and agents, acting in their official capacity, are acts of the government?
No, because the Constitution specifies a President with term limits which cannot be changed by the USSC. The USSC and interpret the existing legislation only they cannot make changes such as you suggest here. According to the Constitution the fact the USSC ruled on the constitutionality DOES make it constitutional if that was the ruling. The only way to alter that situation would be for new legislation in the form of an ammendment.
But the Supreme Court could say that the term limits are unreasonable and therefore unlawful. Basically, by your belief, the country is run by the decisions of the Supreme Court. What they say goes, not matter how much against the Constitution it is.
