OT OT (Off Topic) Supreme Court 10 commandment

Not being a particularly religious person, this pair of decisions
leaves me with a few issues.

How can we furnish Bibles, Korans and such at Military bases? Or
prisons, or in jails?

How can Medicare funds be spent at religious hospitals (a large
portion of the system) that are prominent for their themes?

How can we have any "religious service" at all funded by the tax
payers? Chaplains for Military, Police & Fire?

Can we give any aid to governments that are religiously based? Even
humanitarian aid? Should any of our airlines or military planes be
allowed to land at airports that might receive a subsidy from a
religious state?

State visits by the Pope? Or Sharon?

lots of issues to me.

Ron

In article <5OYve.34466$J12.8605@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
"ron" <randus3remove@pacbell.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Not being a particularly religious person, this pair of decisions
> leaves me with a few issues.
>
> How can we furnish Bibles, Korans and such at Military bases? Or
> prisons, or in jails?
>
> How can Medicare funds be spent at religious hospitals (a large
> portion of the system) that are prominent for their themes?
>
> How can we have any "religious service" at all funded by the tax
> payers? Chaplains for Military, Police & Fire?
>
> Can we give any aid to governments that are religiously based? Even
> humanitarian aid? Should any of our airlines or military planes be
> allowed to land at airports that might receive a subsidy from a
> religious state?
>
> State visits by the Pope? Or Sharon?
>
> lots of issues to me.
>
> Ron[/color]

From what I briefly read the highest court only limited the 10
commandments to the court house, it's ok in other government facilities.
The reason being that to allow the commandments access to the court
house would get religion and government too cozy. I think that's the
way I read the medias version anyway, I could have it wrong .
--

What I got out of it was that it okay in a historical context inside a
building. The framed one on the Kentucky courthouse wall is illegal?
Would seem to me that providing copies of any religious material might
be construed as supporting religion.

(My wife's paycheck is mailed from a Catholic Hospital, it {I hope}
isn't historical so can the post office handle it?)

I guess my imagination is to fertile, better go back to paying the
bills!

The monument in Texas is legal?

Ah well, the lawyers will get richer, I suppose.

In article <Ob_ve.34501$J12.10119@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
"ron" <randus3remove@pacbell.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> What I got out of it was that it okay in a historical context inside a
> building. The framed one on the Kentucky courthouse wall is illegal?
> Would seem to me that providing copies of any religious material might
> be construed as supporting religion.
>
> (My wife's paycheck is mailed from a Catholic Hospital, it {I hope}
> isn't historical so can the post office handle it?)
>
> I guess my imagination is to fertile, better go back to paying the
> bills!
>
> The monument in Texas is legal?
>
> Ah well, the lawyers will get richer, I suppose.[/color]

I just read another article and they quoted Beyrer as saying only old
stuff would be exempt, in other words monuments that have been there for
a while. Could this be really from our highest court? Maybe they're
getting a bit senile?
--

I am "only" 67 so I guess I am as confused as hey seem to be!

A bit of Toyota stuff. We looked at an Avalon XLS this morning - have
yet to see a Limited but I think wife is ready, even though the 02 she
has is the exact same color. as the one we looked at. Darned good
reviews so far for a first year model

"Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
news:ntspam-6F4CA4.16414427062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <Ob_ve.34501$J12.10119@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ron" <randus3remove@pacbell.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> What I got out of it was that it okay in a historical context
>> inside a
>> building. The framed one on the Kentucky courthouse wall is
>> illegal?
>> Would seem to me that providing copies of any religious material
>> might
>> be construed as supporting religion.
>>
>> (My wife's paycheck is mailed from a Catholic Hospital, it {I hope}
>> isn't historical so can the post office handle it?)
>>
>> I guess my imagination is to fertile, better go back to paying the
>> bills!
>>
>> The monument in Texas is legal?
>>
>> Ah well, the lawyers will get richer, I suppose.[/color]
>
> I just read another article and they quoted Beyrer as saying only
> old
> stuff would be exempt, in other words monuments that have been there
> for
> a while. Could this be really from our highest court? Maybe
> they're
> getting a bit senile?
> --
>[/color]

"Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
news:ntspam-6F4CA4.16414427062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <Ob_ve.34501$J12.10119@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ron" <randus3remove@pacbell.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > What I got out of it was that it okay in a historical context inside a
> > building. The framed one on the Kentucky courthouse wall is illegal?
> > Would seem to me that providing copies of any religious material might
> > be construed as supporting religion.
> >
> > (My wife's paycheck is mailed from a Catholic Hospital, it {I hope}
> > isn't historical so can the post office handle it?)
> >
> > I guess my imagination is to fertile, better go back to paying the
> > bills!
> >
> > The monument in Texas is legal?
> >
> > Ah well, the lawyers will get richer, I suppose.[/color]
>
> I just read another article and they quoted Beyrer as saying only old
> stuff would be exempt, in other words monuments that have been there for
> a while. Could this be really from our highest court? Maybe they're
> getting a bit senile?[/color]

Maybe they are, it should ALL be banned and removed IMO. This country was
not founded on Religion, we are a melting pot, in no way does any religion
belong in Government.

Josh wrote:[color=blue]
> "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> news:ntspam-6F4CA4.16414427062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
> > In article <Ob_ve.34501$J12.10119@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "ron" <randus3remove@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > What I got out of it was that it okay in a historical context inside a
> > > building. The framed one on the Kentucky courthouse wall is illegal?
> > > Would seem to me that providing copies of any religious material might
> > > be construed as supporting religion.
> > >
> > > (My wife's paycheck is mailed from a Catholic Hospital, it {I hope}
> > > isn't historical so can the post office handle it?)
> > >
> > > I guess my imagination is to fertile, better go back to paying the
> > > bills!
> > >
> > > The monument in Texas is legal?
> > >
> > > Ah well, the lawyers will get richer, I suppose.[/color]
> >
> > I just read another article and they quoted Beyrer as saying only old
> > stuff would be exempt, in other words monuments that have been there for
> > a while. Could this be really from our highest court? Maybe they're
> > getting a bit senile?[/color]
>
> Maybe they are, it should ALL be banned and removed IMO. This country was
> not founded on Religion, we are a melting pot, in no way does any religion
> belong in Government.[/color]

I bet Dreher got a boner when he heard about this

"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119923735.228958.267980@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>
>
> Josh wrote:[color=green]
> > "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> > news:ntspam-6F4CA4.16414427062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=darkred]
> > > In article <Ob_ve.34501$J12.10119@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > "ron" <randus3remove@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What I got out of it was that it okay in a historical context inside[/color][/color][/color]
a[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > building. The framed one on the Kentucky courthouse wall is[/color][/color][/color]
illegal?[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > Would seem to me that providing copies of any religious material[/color][/color][/color]
might[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > be construed as supporting religion.
> > > >
> > > > (My wife's paycheck is mailed from a Catholic Hospital, it {I hope}
> > > > isn't historical so can the post office handle it?)
> > > >
> > > > I guess my imagination is to fertile, better go back to paying the
> > > > bills!
> > > >
> > > > The monument in Texas is legal?
> > > >
> > > > Ah well, the lawyers will get richer, I suppose.
> > >
> > > I just read another article and they quoted Beyrer as saying only old
> > > stuff would be exempt, in other words monuments that have been there[/color][/color][/color]
for[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > a while. Could this be really from our highest court? Maybe they're
> > > getting a bit senile?[/color]
> >
> > Maybe they are, it should ALL be banned and removed IMO. This country[/color][/color]
was[color=blue][color=green]
> > not founded on Religion, we are a melting pot, in no way does any[/color][/color]
religion[color=blue][color=green]
> > belong in Government.[/color]
>
> I bet Dreher got a boner when he heard about this[/color]

From what I hear the Conservatives are actually mad! They are upset that
they don't get impose their religious views on everyone else as much now.

I have always thought that "If it flies like a duck, quacks like a
duck and craps like a duck, It is a damned duck"

I don't care much either way about the 10 commandments (the values are
okay) But, how can one thing be considered two? Talk about cornflake
logic!

These two interreptations do nothing to enhance my opinion of the
court...

Ah well, like I said sure gives rise to a bunch of silly tortured
logic extensions to their whimsey.

Ron