Federal judge rules lone Jesus painting in Louisiana courthouse was unconstitutional

You argue with the intellectual ferocity of a 7 year old.

Try reading a couple Supreme Court opinions which interpret the meaning of the Constitution, then you will have a better understanding of your own position and would be able to put forth a serious argument not your 'I'm right, you're wrong' blather

 

Why is it that it is you that has so far failed to provide even 1 single quote from the constitution feel that you have the authority to question my intelligence? This is a discussion/debate over a constitutional right and you can not even cite a single line from the constitution to back up your wrong claims. Why is that?

Also while you are searching for at least one line from the constitution to help you out (you still will not find one), could you also please find for me where it says the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the constitution?

have fun.

 

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court"

Then look up judicial review

What wrong claims are you referring to?

 

Judicial review is the power of a court to review the actions of public sector bodies in terms of their legality or constitutionality. In some jurisdictions it is also possible to review the constitutionality of the law itself.

Please inform me how:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court" translates into

'the power of a court to review the actions of public sector bodies in terms of their legality or constitutionality. In some jurisdictions it is also possible to review the constitutionality of the law itself."

It does not. the court gave itself a power it did not have and through tradition it has become accepted.


And sorry about the wrong claims statement, that was meant for another user.

 

Who in the United States has the right to examine the Constitutionality of laws?

Anyone?

The Legislature who passed the law?

Nobody?

Or the the Court that was granted the judicial power?

I am not going to debate Marbury v. Madison, but seriously, if not the Court then who has the authority or do you think nobody does?

 

I have nothing against courts determining if something was against the law, which the constitution would be part of our laws.

What I disagree with is the fact that the Supreme Court gave itself a power that it does not have and allows itself to "interpret" the constitution.

It says what it says. No need to interpret.

 

I think the judge made the correct decision. It is good to know the religious right has not taken over all good sense in this great nation.

 

That is all well and good in theory. The reality is that people, citizen and senator alike, have differing views on how to interpret what the words mean. To ignore that basic fact is nonsense.

Often laws are passed that many feel are unconstitutional. Who do you think should make the final decision?

I think it should be the Supreme Court.

 

You can think all you want but you are wrong.

 

So the religous right has taken over all good sense in this nation? That sucks

Maybe it would help you to consider that instead of a picture of Jesus, they could have a symbol of the religion of Islam. Or maybe a shrine in the corner dedicated to Buddha?

These things have no business being in the foyer of a courthouse.

 

I am not religious one bit so no.
And Jesus is a key figure in most major religions. Islam believes in Jesus. And Buddism does not like it when their important figures are displayed.

 

He is the 'key' figure in one religion the image was used for and you know that.

It was the correct decision, pretty simple really.

BTW I thought it was Islam who did not like their profit displayed, Buddhism which many do not see as a religion I did not know they had a problem with it?

 

My friend is Buddist and him and I had a talk about it all. They do not like their idols being depicted in products and other things. And the image wasn't support Christianity or anything. All it was saying is live life with morals. Be good. Nothing else.

Wrong decision.

 

Depicted in 'products' for sale is a bit different than worshiping a statue. I would think most religions do not like their 'idols' being used for profit.

Correct decision. It was a religious symbol of one religious figure. It said more than 'live life with morals'
#1 It was an image of a religious symbol.
#2 I am glad you brought up 'All it was saying is live life with morals.' A government entity is using a religious image to say to 'live life with morals' you do not see the problem with that?
It is the very reason the constitution was laid out as it was to stop crap like this. A court house using a religious symbol to say how to live your life, and or how you can live your life with 'morals' I guess the only way you can live your life with 'morals' is to be Cristian.

Yet people wonder why those who are not Christian have problems with these 'portraits and statues' in government buildings, simply unbelievable.

 

I meant in all forms even outside of products. Did you know that Catholics and all are really not supposed to have crosses with Jesus on them. That is against their religion but has been looked past and accepted.

It says to live with morals. I am not religious and I still say to live life eith morals. It does not matter what image they have. It is the mesage being out out that matters. They are not endorsing any religion in either way. Jesus is a recognized figure by the majority of people. They are not forcing you to live life with morals. It is just a little slogan if you will call it that. Just a line to think on.

And the Constitution only says that the government will not be ran by the church. Having an image is not running government with church.

I am not christian and i have no problem with it.

 

Don't know about your friend, but as one coming from a zen buddhist lineage, I can tell you that we don't object to images of Buddha being represented. Many mistakenly view this as idolatry, but we tend to see it as memory of a once-living teacher, who passed on a code of life, and a means to train one's mind. It's the same with pictures of our actual teachers being bowed towards at the start of a martial training session - a moment to reflect and to remember lessons learned.

I haven't joined in as the argument is unsupportable in my opinion, for the many reasons I have said earlier.

 

It is not their right, the courthouse is a public building, built with taxpayers money, therefore the building belongs to "us" the people - we help make these decisions when we vote - It never comes down to one group or one person. Picture this, you walk into a courtroom and a muslim judge has put a huge picture of Mecca on the wall - how would you feel? Would you think it was ok? How long do you think it would stay up?

A picture of Jesus doesn't support Christianity????!!!! Are you kidding me???!!!

I guess I should put it a way that you will understand, I'm right your wrong, nanny, nanny, boo-boo

 

Lets put it up to vote then. See how America votes on the issue. It is Constitutional for them to have the picture if they want.

And I would be fine with a picture of Mecca in a courtroom. But the picture of Jesus had reasoning behind it. The picture was saying follow the laws and have morals. What would the pic of Mecca say?

Jesus is in most religions. So no I'm not.

Besides the fact that you are wrong.

 

Jesus is only a prophet in islam and christianity, In modern Judaism he is believed to have existed but was not a prophet. So that is far from "most religions". Especially considering that "most religions" are far older than 2000 years.

 

Most major religions then. And most religions in America which is where the picture is at.