I don’t believe that governments have “powers” or “rights.” People have those and people institute government for their own benefit. If you just want to trade quotes: Thomas Jefferson said that government belongs to the living and not to the dead. It is up to those presently living and affected by governmental actions to decide what their representatives can and cannot do. Or as Aurthur Train said in one of his Mr. Tutt stories: “There ought to be a better reason for a rule of law than that it was so decided in the 12th century.”
But I just gotta find me out when that there Fear Factor done is on. Shucks. Then I gotsa get me to da store to buy me some Cheesy Poofs and Beer so’s I can have me a dinner while Jerry Springer is on. Boy Howdy!
Aldebaran, I just couldn’t let this one go: The irony of your posting:
You reply on my explanation that because until now there was no such prime minister in Belgium it is inherently impossible for such a lady to become one.
immediately after denying the logical implication of your “question” and stating:
To me a question is a question and not a statement.
is humorous beyond belief.
Hamlet, sorry but you are going way out of context here, I wonder why you use your intellect in such a twisted way and even find humour where there is none.
A question is a question and an explanation is not a question and not a statement but an explanation.
So where is the humour in mispresenting an explanation as what it is not while linking to it a statement about a question being a question and not a statement ?
Maybe if you do this again word by word that my single working braincell can follow your reasoning.
Salaam. A
Aldebaran Question: Do you think a divorced female non white atheist would ever stand a chance to become president of the USA?
What, precisely, does this have to do with a judge posting the ten commandments? Anything? Even remotely? So, putting that obvious hijack aside, and looking at your earlier posts, what was the purpose of you asking this question? Do you mean to tell everyone here that this was an honest to Og question and you were actually looking for answers? In an unrelated thread? With no implications whatsoever behind the asking of the question? I may just be a stupid American, but if you tell me it was a honest question, I’ll still think you’re being dishonest.
Hamlet question: Or Belgium?
In all honesty, it was a throwaway comment meant to point out your obvious hijack, while still making a point about the substance of your question. The exact same question you asked of America could be asked about likelihood of being elected in Belgium.
Aldebaran “explanation”: Belgium is a federal state in the form of a constitutional monarchy.
Thanks. I knew this, but thanks for the information. Still, it really didn’t answer any question that was asked.
Aldebaran “explanation” continued: Therefore the prime minister of the federal government is in practice the one who leads the State. Of course this position is open for everyone who is adult, Belgian and in position of his/her legal rights, like all political and non political positions are.
Good to know. Kinda like, oh I don’t know. America.
Aldebaran “explanation” continued:
Other then is the case in the USA, the private life of politicians isn’t discussed nor is it in the focus nor plays it any role in the person’s political carreer. When it comes to the monarchy: In Belgium the king is white, so is his wife, so are their children. The daughter of the crown prince comes after him for succession. She is just a baby but let’s think a bit further and she mareries a man of colour. Then their firstborn child, male of female, comes after her for succession. To give you an example of what I said above about private life: a few years ago some journalist wrote a book on the monarchy in which he referred with a few lines to an illigimate child of the present king. All of a sudden the worlds pulp media were on that… Except for the Belgian media who gave it a few informative lines. It was commonly known that in a certain period of their marriage the current king and queen had difficulties and thus if he had at the time a relation, it was perceived as a result of this. Nobody mentioned that such was reason to attack them on their private affairs or to even insinuate that his could possibly have made him suddenly someone not able to furill his obligations as king.
Again, interesting. But I thought we were talking about elections? But fascinating stuff anyway.
Aldebaran “explanation” continued: Americans seem to focus on private life and relgions thousand times more then on a persons ability to do their job.
Ahh, is this part of the “explanation” phase, or just another wrongly informed insult against America?
Hamlet’s question: And Belgium has had how many divorced female non white atheist prime ministers? Thought so.
I fully admit there is more to this than just the question. See, I’m honest that way, go figure.
Aldebaran “explanation”: Well, ithere can only be one prime minister. Or how many do you think there are in a country?
Well, let’s see. Is this second question a “real” one too? Did you honestly expect me to answer this, or were you using it as a rhetorical slap at my intelligence? Hmmmmmm. Let me think about that one.
Aldebaran “explanation” continued: You obviously have no intention to get informed.
A question is a question. A statement is a statment. And an insult is an insult. Which of the three is this? That’s right. An insult. Congratulations.
Aldebaran “explanation” continued: You have the intention to come up with a question as cover up for pushing through and stubbornly sticking to a prejudiced uninformed twisted opinion about the state structure and politics of a country you have no clue about.
More insults. Still waiting for the explanation part.
Aldebaran “explanation” continued: If that makes you happy, why not. But don’t count on further replies coming from my side. I don’t waist my time on people with intentions like you display here all too clearly.
More insults. With a special dash of added irony that it is more than OK for you to read intentions into my posts, but not OK for anyone else to do this to you. Heh.
You see, I’m part of a generation of Americans who find irony and sarcasm to be funny. Hence, my finding it funny that you were doing precisely what you so violently and insultingly accused me of doing. And alleging that my questions have something else behind them while yours don’t is even more irony. See. It’s funny when you think about it.
Hamlet,
No, you think of it that your little game didn’t work since at this side of the ocean there is someone typing with one single working braincell which is however to your great surprize working good enough to see right through your play.
You now try to find a way out of the trap you set up yourself thinking I would fall into it whitout perceiving your clear intentions.
That is once again an insult to my intellect which you made clear was your goal from the very beginning.
If you want to play games and they don’t work out like you expected, try to take your loss instead of doing it all over again.
Salaam. A
Whatever, Aldebaran. You feel free to think as you like, and we’ll let whoever reads this to determine for themselves who is being insulting and dishonest.
:eek: I should hope not Doc!!!
Hamlet, if you have read the posts I made before my question about the female president, you would know where it came from.
I asked the moderator if I should start an other topic and where and MEB didn’t reply so far (this is the second time I say this although everyone can read it)
You came up with a sort of line packed as if it was a question and which contenance I percieve as an insult.
You should know that in Belgium there is no large enough “coloured” population to have political parties overcrowded with them let be with women. There is a large underpresentation of women in the Belgian political landscape in general. They are doing their best to get even with it but you first need to have women interested enough, no? Miracles are not for humans to perform.
So when there are only a few women in a government in comparison with male representation, and we come to the category of coloured women who form on themselves only a very little minority among the whole of the 10 million Belgians, add there then the divorced and atheist category as additional difficulty to find a couloured women, you can know without calculating that it is very normal that until now there wasn’t any prime minister fitting this description. The situation is largely different in the USA as you know very well.
Thus your so called question was not a question but a clear and denegrating provocation. in an attempt to hijack.
And by the way: so far you didn’t answer my question.
Salaam. A
Moderator’s Note: OK, Aldebaran, this thread was originally started to discuss the Roy Moore case in Alabama; general discussions of the relative merits of the U.S. vs. Belgium, or whatever it is, should go in a separate thread.
Since the argument is about removing a plaque of (a bowdlerized version of) the Ten Commandments and you mention burning churches an Bibles I assumed, and not unreasonably so, that you were talking about Christians. However, if I misrepresented what you said then I apologize. I never try to put words in someone else’s mouth.
I’m praying that the National Guard gets deployed to enforce this decision. What a sight that would be! Guardsmen with sledgehammers smashing the monument as a befuddled Justice Moore looks on sadly! I’m getting a warm fuzzy feeling just thinking about it.
I’m sorry but…yeehaw!
From the sounds of the article, it doesn’t sound like it’s going to be the end of this…umm…crusade for the judge.
Blaron, I don’t care if Madleyn Murray O’Hair (God rest her soul ;)) was in office, that would never happen. The feds had already indicated they were going to go with fines.
StPauler, thanks for the news. I posted that Moore had made the appeal a few minutes ago and you’re ahead of me already. Nothing gets past the Dopers! Good decision on part of the Supremes.
Quote from the AP cite above: “The justices rejected Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s emergency appeal, refusing to be drawn into a dispute over whether the monument violates the Constitution’s ban on government promotion of religion.”
Why should the Supreme Court “be drawn into the dispute?” There isn’t anything for them to decide and I don’t see any legal dispute. I read the Court’s refusal to take the case as saying, “For Crissake guys, we decided this matter a long time ago. Why are you wasting our time? Get with it!” Not in those words of course.
The Supreme Court refused to be drawn into the dispute because at this point, to do so, they would have to agree that the conditions for interfering in the litigation before it reaches them on petition for writ of certiorari would apply, which manifestly they do not. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in or around a courtroom or courthouse; they may be forced to take up the issue soon, given the apparent diversity of decisions issued by the 11th Circuit and the 4th Circuit. Of course, we may get some solid understanding of the likely result when we read whatever they decide on the Pledge of Allegiance case, though that particular case may get sidetracked on the newly emerging standing and mootness issues.
Well, I learned something. Thanks for the correction.
It is afterall just a monument. It is no more significant to the fair and proper actions of the Chief Justice Roy Moore than a crucifix in his office, a cross under his robes or a Yamakah on his head. Having a religious monument is not a statement of religious preference or an advocacy to any particular religion. Its a remembrance, a memorial, a testament to a religion, not its enforcement.
I am wondering when Chief Justice was being sowrn in, did they make him put his left hand on a christian bible and have him raise his right hand and swore to uphold his duties, so help him, God. If they allow such practices, why not a monument to the 10 commandments?
The US government is a at least a wee bit two-faced when it comes to religion in the public realm. As we all know from “One nation, under God” and “In God we Trust”. As long as this situation exists, there are always going to be cased trying to define exactly where it is and is not appropriate. Listening to the news today, I heard claims that the Ten Commandments are actually displayed in the courtroom chambers (or whatever it’s called) of the US Supreme Court. No one was on hand to debunk this, and I’d be interested in hearing if any of our resident legal minds are aware of the veracity of this claim.
Were I a religious person, especially not a Jew, Christian or Muslim, I would be especially disturbed by Commandment Numero Uno. We all know what that is, and I can’t see how that could possibly be claimed to be as innocuous as the milder “In God we Trust” or “Under God”.
Now, if this were part of some historical display that put the Ten Commandments in historical perspective, preferrably with other documents, that might be one thing. But if you’ve actually seen the monument in question, it sure looks like a shrine to me.
I say, get rid of this public disaplay, and if Nat’l Guardsmen have to demolish it, so be it. The court order stands, and a judge refusing to obey that order is, by definition, in contempt of court.
X: The problem in the Alabama case is that particular judge has announced that his version of deity is the ruling factor in his state’s and the nation’s constitutions.
I might have been too hasty in accepting you statement above. Sure, the Supreme Court hasn’t specifically ruled about the 10 Commandments and a courthouse but they certainly have ruled about posting them in or around governmentally supported and managed buildings.
See this LA Times story.
Just in case the link requires registration, here are some quotes from the story:*
"In 1980, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law that called for posting the Ten Commandments in all school classrooms. The commandments “concern the religious duties of believers,” the court said, and, therefore, amount to official promotion of religion.
…
Two years ago, the court also let stand a judge’s order that required the city of Elkhart, Ind., to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from in front of City Hall. All these rulings grew out of the 1st Amendment’s ban on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”*
If the court does rule in this particular case of a State Courthouse will they then have to decide another case involving a Federal Courthouse? I have trouble believing that the Court ordinarily draws such exceedingly specific distinctions. The cases mentioned in the story involve the 10 Commandments and government building and certainly seem applicable to me.
I’ll go back to my original idea that the Court said, “Been there, done that.”