1
   

Houston - Bible must be removed

 
 
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 09:15 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 Updated 9:47 p.m. CDT
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
Harris County must remove Bible displayed outside courthouse
U.S. District Judge Sim Lake ruled today that a Bible displayed in a monument outside the Harris County Civil Courts Building must be removed within 10 days and that the county must pay $41,000 in court costs and attorney fees.



This from the Houston Chronicle. I have always advocated separation of church and state, and I approve this decision. - edgarblythe
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,850 • Replies: 93
No top replies

 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 10:08 pm
I agree with you edgar. The Bible should be removed.

God...please, don't anyone tell that whacky former judge, Roy Moore, down in Alabama about this. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 11:48 pm
I've often thought that when a Federal Judge makes a ruling, the newspapers should also report which President appointed the Judge.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2004 04:40 am
Often that president will no longer be in office, Jim.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2004 05:22 am
No, keep it. Just give equal billing to a copy of the Torah, the Koran, the Bhagata-Vida, an Aztec codex, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, a Dianetics manual, a Wiccan book, Norse runes, etc and stand back to watch the fireworks as the espousers of religious 'tolerance' battle it out with baseball bats, knives and shot-guns to work out who gets star billing.


God will, as always, favour the winner.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2004 05:32 am
Took the words...
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2004 07:28 am
Edgar - of course you are right. A Federal Judge might well still be in office 30 years after he or she is appointed - certainly long after the President who did the appointing has left office.

I can't help but believe that all too many voters disassociate voting in November with changes that effect their lives years later, much the same way teenagers disassociate a roll in the hay with finding themselves pregnant two months later.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2004 08:23 am
Is it still common practice for those giving evidence to swear the 'truth oath' on a Bible? I've always wondered how the authorities can prove that Jews, Muslims, Sikhs etc have actually taken the oath, as they are swearing on something that has little or no meaning for them. I'm confused (again).
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2004 08:28 am
A Bible is unnecessary for being sworn to give testimony. See: http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3711#post3711
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2004 08:38 am
Thanks, Jespah. I'm not sure whether my own country's legal system (where long robes & curly white wigs are worn in court) has caught up with the US yet. I'm going to do some research.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2004 08:48 am
Jim wrote:
I've often thought that when a Federal Judge makes a ruling, the newspapers should also report which President appointed the Judge.

Judge Sim T. Lake III took office on August 12, 1988. That would make him a Reagan appointee.

Now, why does that matter?
0 Replies
 
john-nyc
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2004 09:22 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Jim wrote:
I've often thought that when a Federal Judge makes a ruling, the newspapers should also report which President appointed the Judge.

Judge Sim T. Lake III took office on August 12, 1988. That would make him a Reagan appointee.

Now, why does that matter?


I think that point was: If you want judges who think like you do, then vote for politicians that think like you do.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2004 11:13 am
I don't think Reagan thought like that - Which shows that judges can have minds of their own.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2004 11:36 am
The constitution itself allows one to "swear or affirm"--at the time of its promulgation, there were many christians opposed to the idea of swearing to god.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2004 10:36 am
Star of Hope to file motion to keep Bible on display
The mission is receiving help from a nonprofit legal organization
By BILL MURPHY
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

Star of Hope will file motions today asking a judge to allow the mission's Bible to remain on display outside the Harris County Civil Courts Building.


Star of Hope will be represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based nonprofit that provides free legal services to those opposing constitutional curbs on religious expression.

Gary Brown, Star of Hope's director of operations, said he could not say whether the mission would comply with U.S. District Judge Sim Lake's order to remove the Bible by Tuesday if the judge does not stay his own order. The county and the mission want Lake to wait until appeals have been exhausted before he enforces the order.

"We can't say what we will do. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it," Brown said. "We are part of the community. We believe in order and justice."

On Aug. 9, Lake ordered the county to remove the Bible. Harris County Attorney Mike Stafford said he will ask Star of Hope to remove the Bible, which belongs to the mission.

It sits in a glass case atop a monument that Star of Hope erected near the courthouse in 1956 to honor William S. Mosher, a major benefactor.

Star of Hope will file a motion today to intervene in the case, said Victoria Matta, the alliance's spokeswoman.

"The memorial stand with the Bible inside was legally placed at the back door of the county courthouse," the shelter said in a written statement.

The Bible is "a symbol of why this man of vision (Mosher) did what he did," the statement said.

Kay Staley, a local lawyer, sued the county, arguing that displaying the Bible on county property violates the separation of church and state doctrine. Lake ruled that displaying the book was unconstitutional because it made the county appear to be endorsing Christianity.

[email protected]
0 Replies
 
mgmorrell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 07:45 am
It is very telling when a judge forbids the Word of God to be present. God is all about government. That judge and the government would not be in power unless God gave them that power. the Prophecy of Habakkuk says it very well that a day of judgement is heading this way against such rulers who pervert the truth and forbid anyone from hearing about God. When Jesus Christ returns, he will dismantle such governments and establish a new Jewish Kingdom which will crush all other governments. Those who understand the bible and love it, and obey it now, can rule with him in that day.

Michael.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 07:55 am
Don't think so
mgmorrell wrote:
It is very telling when a judge forbids the Word of God to be present. God is all about government. That judge and the government would not be in power unless God gave them that power. the Prophecy of Habakkuk says it very well that a day of judgement is heading this way against such rulers who pervert the truth and forbid anyone from hearing about God. When Jesus Christ returns, he will dismantle such governments and establish a new Jewish Kingdom which will crush all other governments. Those who understand the bible and love it, and obey it now, can rule with him in that day.

Michael.


The government does not forbid anyone from hearing about God. When Jesus returns and crushes all other governments, what religions will be allowed then? I doubt all those who obey the bible will rule with Jesus. Oh sure, he will confer with his male apostles, but the women will be washing his feet.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 08:08 am
There are plenty of us who do not accept as absolute truth that Jesus will do anything at all. Until such time as he makes good on Christians' promises, the rest of us have an equal say in what transpires here on Earth.
0 Replies
 
john-nyc
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 10:34 am
mgmorrell wrote:
It is very telling when a judge forbids the Word of God to be present. God is all about government. That judge and the government would not be in power unless God gave them that power. the Prophecy of Habakkuk says it very well that a day of judgement is heading this way against such rulers who pervert the truth and forbid anyone from hearing about God. When Jesus Christ returns, he will dismantle such governments and establish a new Jewish Kingdom which will crush all other governments. Those who understand the bible and love it, and obey it now, can rule with him in that day.

Michael.


How do you know that the bible is the "word of God?"
0 Replies
 
john-nyc
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 10:47 am
edgarblythe wrote:
I don't think Reagan thought like that - Which shows that judges can have minds of their own.


10-4 on that!

That is why Supreme Court justices get appointed for life: so that they can make their decisions above the political fray without worring about getting fired if the current polititians don't like what they hear.

My point was Presidents are likely to nominate and Senators are likely to approve those people who are closest to their own general political opinions. The justices who are appointed this way are likely to rule according to those general political opinions. There is no guarantee that they will.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Houston - Bible must be removed
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/13/2020 at 11:21:18