Muslim Supreme Court Nominee?

"If the 10 Cs are preeminent over the Constitution, then why is the Constitution law and several of the 10 Cs totally unenforeable as law"----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not say that Daisy. The constitution is the constitution. But in our art and and documents, the ten commandments and its God are preemenent. Showing that the thought and philosiphy that went into our founding and founding documents are inherently Judeo/Christian. The foundation of a house is not always visible and seldom thought about, but the whole house depends on it.

Some of the ten commandments can't be enforced nd shouldent- Like not having any God before me. And not coveting. Some are enforced in the civil law as opposed to criminal, like adultery.

"States, in this context, are not nations"--------------------------------------------------------

This Nation was borne of the states.

Culture is everything. Culture becomes law. Homosexuality became open culture then it became legal, then they begain to marry. ETC.

 

Johnv,

I have yet to hear of a case of a Muslim inserting personal religious beliefs into a judicial decision.

Do you know of any Muslims on the bench? If there are none, the point is moot.


Bunyon,

the fact remains that he started the religion based on the Message he got from an angel in a cave.

I thought that was Joseph Smith and the Mormon religion.

 

No way.

 

Actually, LE, the Supreme Court NEVER ruled that this was a Christian Nation. The case to which you refer was one in which Justice David Brewer wrote in dicta, or just stating his own opinion, that this was a Christian nation. This was NOT a ruling by the Supreme Court.

In fact, the Treaty of Tripoli states explicitly that the United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion.

 

MP,

Was it the court's opinion, or a concurring or dissenting opinion?

Edited: Never mind, I looked up the case via Google (thanks, LE!). A couple of paragraphs to give a little more context (he was writing for the court, BTW):

 

MP,

I don't think anyone (except maybe David Barton) is saying that the Court decided with this statement that it was the duty of government to "enforce" the Christian religion. The statement by the court that

evidences this. But that does not take away from the historical accuracy of the statement that

 

Thanks. This cave origin thing seems to be rather common. But what about the angel in the cave?

 

Just curious. If we were having this discussion prior to 9-11 would the tone of the conversation be the same?

 

Well ruling might not be the correct term, assertion might be more like it. But in the opinion, it is clear, that this Nation was founded and predicated on the Bible and the Christian religion. The opinion says that it is simply self evidident. In our papers our art our laws it is clear that this is a Christians nation, or perhaps I sould say -was. But to believe our nation is and was founded and advanced in a secular vacum, or to believe that all religions were equaly recognized or that they equally contributed to who we are, is to be willfuly blind. No thinking person who actually examines the Nation and its history can come to any other conclusion then the court did, we were, and I hope will alwalys be, a Christian nation.

 

We seem to have filled our quota for Roman Catholics on the Court for this century also. Why are we trying to make our country into a 2nd class legal system?

 

Yes. Moore awarded custody of a minor child based on the sexual preference of the parents. In the case, the heterosexual father had been accused of abusing his children and the mother was petitioning the court for custody. The fact that the mother was now a lesbian was not at issue in the case. The only matter before the court was the question of whether the father had been abusive toward the children. But Moore awarded custody to the abusive father instead of the mother, based on the fact that the mother was a lesbian.

I recently had to file a small claims court case against a company. The judge was a Muslim. He ruled in my favor. Why? Because I met the burden of proof required by a plaintiff. Kindly tell me how the judge infused his person religious beliefs.

[ October 03, 2005, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

That's a complete fabrication and falsehood on the part of ultraconservative revisionist historians like David Barton. Barton's "The Myth of Separation" claims that the Supreme Court determined that the United States was a Christian nation in the 1892 case, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 226 (1892). But his analysis of the case is nothing but manipulation of the language of the opinion to distort the case itself.

The facts of Holy Trinity concerned the application of an Act of Congress titled "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories and the District of Columbia." Holy Trinity Church, a church located in the city of New York, contracted with a minister from England to perform services as rector and pastor at its church. At issue in the case was whether or not the church's action violated the Act which prohibited "any person, company, partnership, or corporation ... to assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien ... under contract or agreement ... to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States."

The Court concluded that the purpose of the Act was to prohibit the importation of foreign unskilled persons to perform manual labor and manual services. A christian minister, the Court reasoned, is a "toiler of the brain," not a manual laborer; Holy Trinity Church, therefore, was found not to have violated the Act when it secured a contract for the holy man's employment.

The issue of religion or faith was not even an issue in the case. One of the justices (Brewer) uses the phrase "we are a christian nation" to support the decision that a foreign-born minister is allowed access to this country and does not violate the Act in question.

When David Barton and others use this case to claim that SCOTUS "ruled" that the US was a Christian nation, they're blatant liars.

 

[/b]
Irrelevent to your claim, especially considering that the present SCOTUS building did not exist until after 1935. The present SCOTUS building includes numerous portico facades and statues, including non-biblical characters "Authority of Law" and "Contemplation of Justice" that dwarf the reliefs. It's rather amusing that Bartonian Christian-revisionists often point to the Moses relief in the rear facade of the SCOTUS building, but completely ignore the numerous other characters in both the front and rear facades that are likewise depicted. And then there's the goddess which stands atop the capitol building, but that's a whole other topic.

 

Exactly right, JohnV, especially considering the already pointed out fact of Mohammed also being included on the SCOTUS building.

Same thing with In God We Trust on the money. Doesn't make us a Christian nation anymore than the Goddess of Liberty on some earlier U.S. coins makes us a pagan nation.

[ October 03, 2005, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Magnetic Poles ]

 

Correct me if I am wrong, Johnv, but that was in the majority opinion of the court in this case is it not. And it says that in all of our papers and other things it is incontrivertable that we are a Christian nation. That is their opinion and they say it is beyond question. So why is it so important for you to question it? Why does the thought threaten you so? They did not say any particlular piece of art or any particular document made us a Christian nation, they said when you look at the total, the weight of Christian influance put it beyond doubt. What would a single coin prove? or disprove?

No one is trying to say that their was a case about wheather we are a Christian nation and they ruled that we were, but it is officially stated in the official opinion.

 

""Yes. Moore awarded custody of a minor child based on the sexual preference of the parents. In the case, the heterosexual father had been accused of abusing his children and the mother was petitioning the court for custody. The fact that the mother was now a lesbian was not at issue in the case. The only matter before the court was the question of whether the father had been abusive toward the children. But Moore awarded custody to the abusive father instead of the mother, based on the fact that the mother was a lesbian.""---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it hard to believe that if it was as clear cut as you say that it was not all over the news. But I can tell you that a true Muslim would be even more unlikely to give a child to a Lesbian. A lot of good people from all of the 3 western religions would think it unwise to award children to lesbian and gay couples. That is traditional values, not necceseraly religious zelotry.