Justice

You are kidding, right? If France had invaded Germany right as they hit Poland, Hitler had NO TROOPS THERE! They could have stopped the war right there, but the French High Command wouldn't do it. And you are a moron to say "If France had fought they would have gotten slaughtered". They did fight. Their troops weren't bad, their commanders were just stupid as fuck to invest in antiquated strategies like the Maginot Line. They and the Brits probably could have done reasonably well against the Germans had it not been for their idiotic commanders not knowing how to use armor correctly. Remind me why in the hell we had to get involved? Europe screwed itself, and it was out of our own good will that we decided to commit troops there. France may have played a major part in that war, and it's commendable, but it wouldn't have effected us either way. We don't need to thank them for anything in that war, they should thank US. But wait! Didn't we absolutely need their permission to go into Iraq? Or Kosovo? I could have sworn that half this board was claiming this not long ago... What the hell is with you and defending France, JMA? Are you a native or something? Honestly, what the hell do they really do that is so important?

That was tasteless. France helped quite a lot during OUR revolutionary war and WWI. They helped us during the Revolution, then tried to extort money from us for their support later. They've done one thing for us. We helped them out in World War I. If you want to thank someone, thank Belgium for sacrificing themselves to slow the Germans. The French hardly deserve praise there. And hey, we've rebuilt their country twice in the last hundred years, JMA, yet they most of their citizenry doesn't see fit to give us any respect. Why should we?

XCalibur v. Annie Eclectic - XCalibur has been doing pretty well after taking a few early losses. Meanwhile Annie is doing well. I know she lost to Craven, though I heard she was having trouble with the match itself. I think Annie will get to the next round here. WINNER: Annie! CIA v. Judge Mental - Oh so much fun... I remember wanting to face off against him at Countdown, but he got bumped just that day. Oh well, hopefully I can pull out a win here, though if Drewski is around and on, he'll probably womp on me. "The Sinner" John Duran v. Dante Crane - Evo has had trouble finding a groove as of late. Meanwhile we have Dante here running around doing well, so I think Dante will trump Duran. Crow v. Quiz - Quiz is much like Kris... or Kross. Anyways, I think Crow has the goods to beat Quiz solidly. "The Franchise" Mak Francis v. Jay Dawg - Oh boy, a great matchup here. I'd say that Mak gets a win here. Viktor Tarankov v. "The Sacred One" Andrew Blackwell - A rematch... sort of. Anyways, Blackwell will most likely take this one, but Vik could play a big underdog and make it. Show v. Michael Craven - Mike, most likely, but I'll be rooting for SHOW~! Nathaniel Kibagami v. Apostle - Oi. A stomping to be sure. Apostle has made it farther than any JLer I've heard of in the last tourney, but Kibs is Kibs. Unless Kibs no-shows, he probably has this. Of course, if Apostle manages to pull off a stunner it would certainly show something for him. Main Event Danny Williams v. Ejiro Fasaki - MOTN, no question. These two have faced each other before, and last time it came right down to the wire. While Danny is Danny, I think Ejiro will finally take this one from him to finally give him a win over Williams and finally boost him into Main Event Singles scene, or at the very least the Upper Midcard.

You think HE was sweating? I was drowning...

Wow. I've been waiting for this match for a long time. Good looking card here.

Yes, I know. So it'll cost you around 37 cents for it to stay a year. OH THE HORROR ~!~!

So there are 4,486,508 people in Alabama, so divide 5,00 by that and that's how much your taxes increase. I can already see the starving people because everyone lost .11 of a cent, JMA! Someone, think of the children! I know it's the principle of the thing, but I still have to laugh at how much this really costs the taxpayers here . Not that I agree with it, but it's still kind of funny.

Well, the biggest problem is the transition over it. We still have to have oil as we transition to Hydrogen or Electric or whatever because that will take years and years to do a complete switchover. Remember, this isn't an overnight thing. This will take at least a few decades, and I'll be that once OPEC catches on they'll really try to gouge us before they go down in flames. Best to have something to prevent that from happening. But whatever; I'd prefer better gas mileage on cars as well.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JIRO!!

Done, and I think I stand a chance of winning for once. I'm actually pretty happy with the product of my labors. That hasn't been true in a while. Whoo!

Yeah, but he'll be about the same size and weight as you 'round then . Happy 16th B-Day, Zeddy Lamarr.

But they are symbolic. Moore is one of these "What Would Jesus Do?" types that is taking this very literally. In fact, we've talked about how this monument would be largely symbolic if it weren't that he has made it quite clear that he considers the monument a form of worship instead of a form of symbolism. But it doesn't matter. We are referring to the monument, not the person. It's not whether the person's actions are wrong, it's whether or not the monument itself is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what Moore says, it's whether or not the thing itself is okay or not. No, we didn't. The thing itself was not paid for by tax dollars at all. This is stated. They may have objections right now since it is costing them something, but otherwise it didn't seem as though anyone cared outside of three workers (Were they lawyers as well?) there. I highly doubt this was of anyone's concern before this incident.

That quiz is a neat one. I got 17 on it (Damn me for considering creator a reference to religion, because I should have realized it isn't). The Commandment thing is interesting as well, though they are relatively the same even if the Protestant and Hebrew version are a bit more specific with what they say. Basically the Catholics push #1 and #2 together while the Hebrews and Protestants push #9 and #10 together. But my argument is, without the Judge (Which it looks like rightfully most of the heat is aimed at), the monument is harmless. It itself isn't a violation of Church and State. You'd have to have the madman behind it pushing it to be one, but without him it's something that is completely legal.

Exactly. Well put, Mike.

Again, there's nothing in the Constitution that actually says this. The only thing that suggests this would be a speech by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists years later and that's about it. The Constitution was pretty vague when you really look at it.

A condensed history of it all is in the complaint report. Here's a copy courtesy of Faux News. So were those complaints from both the ACLU and the Seperation of Church and State Society (Or something like that)? What I'm saying is, how many local people complained before this. This isn't shown in that report really, and I don't think anyone outside of those two groups really had a problem with it.

Well, after all this fuss about it I would think they would. Especially if it's going to cost them money. But how many complaints came from before this is what I'm really thinking of...

Think of the greater majority here. Alabama taxpayers, all across the state, are paying for Moore's little crusade here. Those daily fines for each day the monument sits in the courthouse are distributed among all the citizenship. The deadline passed two days ago, so it's $5,000 a day until the 27th, when it reaches $10,000 a day. If it's still there September 3rd, $20,000 a day. Do you truly think a majority of Alabamans all across the state are willing to incur these fees to keep the monument there? Do you think a majority are for this? I do agree with Jobber here. While the decision may not have been the best one, the judge's conduct afterwards was indeed uncalled for. He is a justice of the law, not of himself, and he has a duty to fulfil that, no matter his feelings on the matter. Thankful it looks like he's getting his right now...

Just for a reference, a picture of the actual thing: Again, I don't find that incredibly overbearing or anything...

Wrong. Even if there aren't any tablets, the idea of them easily qualifies as history. Someone had to at least think them up, and the idea behind them has lasted over two millienia. Not all history is physical, JotW. Codes and such like this can be considered historical. Secondly, most every breakoff of Christianity and Judaism mentions them in some way, shape, or form. It's not just a text for ONE religion, it's one text for MANY. Why? I'm sorry, but I just don't see this. He has the 10 Commandments on the thing. They don't mean anything to you then, why should they suddenly strike meaning with you now? And just to make a note, one would think an Atheist living in the Deep South like this would have slightly thicker skin ... But in seriousness, I don't see how it is being forced upon you. You don't have to even regard it when you go in, let alone subscribe to they beliefs behind it. And that's the fault of the monument in some way? You are faulting an inanimate object for the biases of a legal official. If the monument had been there with a fair judge, would it matter anyways? I don't see how having the 10 Commandments could possibly effect the decisions of a judge.

Okay, I'm gonna get my beliefs down as well right now, because after all this arguing I'm kinda cooling down (I'm more moderate than you think I am, but when push comes to shove I get more and more extreme to whatever side I'm on...). Generally, I don't see this as a massive problem. This isn't something being forced upon people, and this, while not appealing to everyone, appeals to an utterly massive majority of people since the 10 Commandments cross many many different religions. While a few people may be offended, I don't see this as a problem because while the minority has a right to voice it's opinion, it doesn't have the right always get it's way because it is the minority. In my opinion, if it's something that is very non-denominational and if it isn't being forced upon someone (Which is why I'm against school-sponsored prayer at Football games), it's okay. And yes, I find a difference between a monument and hundreds of people around me saying a prayer because that's far more of a pressure than some piece of granite. And that's that for me.

But, you see, it doesn't MATTER what you think. The simple fact that they lack a strong endorsement of any one religion (Catholic, Hasidic Jew, etc...) makes it above an argument under the Constitution. Nothing to do with the argument. Carrying on... Are you a moron or something? WAKE UP! Do you realize that even if the Fundies (A small minority themselves) support this, that doesn't mean anything in whole scheme of things? Just because they get one thing their way doesn't mean I'm gonna wake up tomorow and have to put on a cross before going to Bible study all of a sudden. To think that this will somehow result in a Theocracy is fucking idiotic. I'm sorry, but everyone who wants this to stay are in it for themselves, yet you are suddenly the defender of the people? I'm sorry, but that comment makes no sense. So if I'm a decent man who wants the thing to say, I'm in it for myself (because this is clearly obvious). But you, on the other hand, are somehow fighting this for other downtrodden people? What? Okay, I'll explain this a little better. Decent, good people want this to say. To judge the people by simply saying "The Fundies are behind it, so it's wrong" is not correct in any way, because the Fundies only represent a small but very vocal minority here. And that's what he gets out of it. Does that mean everyone will get the same feeling out of it? Remember, Moore isn't the only one fighting here. It was there before anyways, and the ones who wanted to take it down were the ACLU, not town members or anyone who had to deal with it. I see THAT as more of pushing beliefs on someone than anything else here. Any kind of Religious meaning? Are you serious? Do you also believe that "In God We Trust" should be taken off dollar bills? Pandering to the religious majority? The Majority is the Majority, no matter what their religion. The Minority is allowed to voice their opinion with impunity, but just because they are they are the Minority means they must be pandered. You have to please the largest amount of people, not the smallest. You just have to protect everyone's right while doing so. Indeed, it was getting tiring. I'm probably not going to respond to this thread again (Oi, I get way too into arguments...)

You asked "why should we care?" I wanted to know who you meant when you said "we." Those who want it taken down. Why do you even care? But that's his take on it. It doesn't everyone shares the same opinion. And Christ, stop it with your little "Christianity is trying to turn me towards Jesus everywhere I go!" thing. How many people do you think are going to suddenly convert with this monument? Where? Is it Methodist? Catholic? Baptist? Hasidic Jew? Which religion does it endorse? And just to say, Christianity is a conglomeration of religions. Huh? Why should the Minority get the same power as the Majority? But the thing is this monument is basically non-denominational, so the Christians aren't the only ones who are getting this. To ask, who in the area complained of it? Or did the ACLU just come in and say it was wrong? How the fuck is it a factor? Does it somehow change a judge's religion? In any case, the law decides for a judge anyways, not his religion. I don't see how that factors into a court case... Wrong, because the 10 Commandments are basic tenants in Judaism as well. How? Explain this to me. I don't remember them being forced to look at it, or believe it, or anything. Where's the forced readings of it by people who enter the Courthouse? And which religion? The 10 Commandments aren't specifically for any religion, they are shared across a few major groups. Just because you find it to be offensive because you theorize to be a Christian plot to make themselves look better doesn't mean it's suddenly a symbol of Christian power.

It appeals to both groups. It is a symbol for both respective religions. But the thing is, they are massive sects of people and many varying religions. Even if it is a symbol of religion as a whole, how is it an endorsement? Once again, if God is secular because it crosses across so many religions, how aren't the 10 Commandments? Yes, yes you do. You lack any real basing in the Constitution for this since the 10 Commandments are too broad to endorse only one religion, but rather only represent a moral code. So what if Fundies are fighting for this? If Jerry Fallwell was for Civil Right back in the 60's, would you join the KKK? Just saying "The Fundies are for it" doesn't mean it's automatically wrong and there aren't others who are down-to-Earth fighting for it. I could care less about what Jerry Fucking Fallwell feels on the situation. You totally missed my argument that even if the Fundies are fighting for this, there are many other who are fighting for this who are reasonable and THEY are the best representation of who is fighting for it. Well, I DO see this as trivial. The monument is totally and lacks any endorsement of a religion in there. There shouldn't be a problem if you don't even believe in what it says. Sorry, bud, but the majority DOES matter. Lemme ask you a question: Did you ever think the Koran wasn't put there because noone asked for it to be there? If no one wants it there, why the fuck do we need to have it?

Where did I say "we"? But again, it's just a monument. That was your argument against SP and it comes right back at you. Honestly, why should ANYONE care about this? And there isn't an endorsment of a church in just using the 10 Commandment. The constitution says nothing of seperating basic, non-denominational religious references from the state, but only obvious endorsements and favoritism of one specific religion. There isn't a violation of the Constitution. Not necessarily. You really haven't given an argument why it would be wrong. So it's fair to punish the majority in favor of the minority? Why does every religious symbol need to be in a courthouse. Honestly, what meaning does the Koran hold to any Christians who would look upon it? A majority of people in Alabama are Christians, so almost all people who enter the courtroom can find some significance in it. They have the right to do this just as a very Muslim dominated area has the right to put up the Koran in the Rotunda of a courthouse. Hell, you could argue that at least the 10 Commandments is more non-denominational than the Koran because it doesn't even specifically endorse one major TYPE of Religion. And if you are an Atheist, what does it matter? They aren't forcing you to look at it. Just like God is only a word to be followed by damn, it doesn' t hold any real meaning in your life, so why do you care? You say "If they put the Koran in there, the Fundies would bitch and whine". Of course they would. But if a majority of the people side with the Fundies, then it should go. There's no need to it to be where it is if it isn't popular with the people who have to deal with it everyday.