No, DesertGeezer meant Apollo
But do doctors still really swear it?
The classical version of the Hippocratic Oath begins:
“I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant.”
Oops! :o I had never read the Oath before. Apollo is usually associated with other things (light, music, his beauty) so it seemed odd to me that he is mentioned in the Oath.
Depending on how much credit you give Moore for his intelligence, you might also say it’s possible he realized that other courts would crack down on him for his extravagance and he’d get to play the part of the martyr. In any case (since we’re in the Pit ;)), he’s a jackass.
I can hardly wait till the Supreme Court rules on such important matters as to whether:
-US postage stamps can carry suggestions of religious practices (hint: are “Santa Claus” depictions on stamps constitutional?)
-US Service Academies can have taxpayer-supported chaplains
-Muncipalities should recognize “Santeria” (a religious cult that mandates the sacrifice of animals by slitting the throat) as a valid religion
Man, these guys really know what’s important! I feel so good, knowing that I woill be protected from Christmas displays on public land!
Are you too dumb to read all the people who have answered your comment, or are you just assuming we’re all agreeing with you? The Supreme Court doesn’t rule on anything unless a bunch of lower courts do first, dipshit. They don’t make up these issues. Can you tell us what the hell they SHOULD be doing? Your OP was pretty dumb, it didn’t need a reprise.
What are you, some kind of nutball animal rights activist? I’m so fucking tired of you and your PETA friends trying to tell everyone how they ought to live their lives. Go fuck yourself, vegan.
(readying voodoo doll of ralph124c)
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
I can hardly wait till the Supreme Court rules on such . . .
-US Service Academies can have taxpayer-supported chaplains
Already did. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc v City of Hialeah (1993)
And, again, what’s wrong with the Supremes ruling on this case? It raises a constitutional question, and is a matter the lower courts have been divided on? Remember, too, the court has just decided to take the case. You don’t even know yet which way they’ll decide.
The court, however, has not yet ruled on whether executing people who make coding errors is constitutional…
This thread is in the Pit now, right? Ah, good.
Jesus fuckin’ Christ, Ralph- get off yourself.
Supreme Court. Highest court in the land. There is none higher. Of COURSE they should be ruling on this sort of thing- separation of Church and State is what this country is FOUNDED on.
If you don’t think the Ten Commandments are a ringing endorsement of the Christian religion, I suggest you read the VERY. FIRST. FUCKING. COMMANDMENT.
These endless arguements remind me of Jonathan Swift’s Lilleputians…whith their arguments betweem the “big endians” and the “little endians”.
Well, it keeps lots of lawyers employed.
And the way to cut down on these arguments, at least for a while, is for there to be an actual decision about it!!! Jesus Christ on a Civil Docket, if the Court dismissed these appeals, the effect would be:
(a) The lower-court decisions in KY and TX stand, and the 10-C get removed from the buildings there; and
(b) Because no final rule is made, every other instance of the 10-C in a public place across the land is still subject to someone complaining and suing
Is that what you WANT? Or is what you want for there to simply be a collusion by Courts of First Instance across the land, from Agana to Bangor and from Nome to Charlotte Amalie, to refuse to even hear a complaint about religion in public places?
Ladies and gentlemen, boys, girls and - yes, even you, ralph124c, I have uncovered indisputable evidence that SCOTUS is going looking for work! From a few balled-up pieces of paper containing the minutes of their last ultra top-secret meeting, amaze and astonish your friends with this information:
Rehnquist: “Alright, alright, let’s come to order here. We only have a few minutes before the debate comes on.”
Scalia: “But don’t we already know who’s going to win?”
Thomas: “It’s the black candidate, isn’t it? Am I right?”
O’Connor: “Clarence, don’t you ever pay attention?”
Thomas: ::stares at O’Connor’s general breast area, stammers::
Kennedy: “Let’s get this thing going. 'Toni has a ‘fishing trip’ with Cheney tomorrow, owing to how Halliburton-”
Rehnquist: “Now, now, don’t spoil the surprise for Clarence, he hasn’t been shown the secret briefs yet.”
Thomas: ::starts looking in Ginsburg’s general brief area::
Stevens: “Right, okay. We’ve got to figure out what to do to take attention away from the election challenge we’ll be having early November. We just did gay sex, so we should probably wait a while until the uproar over that dies down.”
Souter: “What do you all think about an abortion case?”
Scalia: “It isn’t time to rule on that one yet. Besides, we still don’t have anything better to base that opinion on than ‘A person’s a person, no matter how small.’”
Breyer: “We could do something on quotas and affirmative action…”
Thomas: ::looks up from Ginsburg’s brief area:: “Affirmative action! Yes! We absolutely need more of that! There are NOT enough black interns working in the office! I think it’s racist!”
Rehnquist: “Clarence, you little lost child, we already HAVE affirmative action, remember? I think what you’re pushing for is mandatory hiring of workers based on race.”
Thomas: “Yes! Absolutely! All in favor of mandatory hiring of workers based on race?” ::only Thomas and Scalia raise hands::
Kennedy: “Antonin? I didn’t know you were in favor of that!”
Scalia: “Well I have to at least keep up enough appearance that I’m not a conservative hack, or some folks might start wondering.”
Ginsburg: “Why don’t we write something controversial about religion in government? And this time, ::looks menacingly in Scalia’s direction:: maybe we can keep that ceremonial deism claptrap out of an otherwise-respectable legal opinion?”
Scalia: “Hey, that wasn’t just my idea! Besides, you know the Illuminati forbade actual adherence to SOCAS until 2034!”
Thomas: “The Illuminati! I knew they existed! Where are they hiding? … Guys? Guys?”
Rehnquist: “Look, Clarence, a black intern!”
Thomas: ::runs off in search of her::
exeunt Clarence Thomas
Rehnquist: “Now that we’ve got that boob out of the way, what do we think about finding a ten commandments case and randomly issuing an opinion that’ll have people talking about anything other than the election? We could use the distraction; Lord knows Kerry isn’t running with a high enough polling percent to convince the general public he has a shot at winning.”
Scalia: ::rolls his eyes::
Souter: “Oh, get off it, dude. McCain’s scheduled to win it in 2008 anyway, so you’ll get a nice Real Republican in the white house.”
Scalia: “I’m just sayin’, is all.”
Ginsburg: “So it’s settled, then? A new opinion about SOCAS and the ten commandments in federal and state buildings to be issued … hmm. I guess October 30 would be an appropriate day for one to be randomly issued.”
Rehnquist: “All in favor?”
Scalia: “I just want to go on the record as saying y’all suck. I can’t wait for McCain to be in charge of things. Giuliani is going to make such a good Veep, too.” :wrings hands in giddy anticipation:
Kennedy: “There, there, good buddy, it’ll be okay. Remember, in a year and a half, there’s a coup of North Korea in the works, and you know what that means.”
Scalia: “Asian sex slaves?”
Rehnquist: “ANYway, let’s vote on this thing. Yankees-Red Sox comes on soon, and I … oh, wait, we already fixed that one too. So yeah. Anyone have an objection to a new SOCAS ruling?”
::silence::
Ginsburg: “Shouldn’t we wait for Clarence to get back?”
O’Connor: “Frankly if we were waiting for him to get a piece of ass, we waited way too long. Someone should just send him a memo about the decision. One of you guys do it; the last memo I sent him, he thought I was checking him out.”
Rehnquist: “But we’ve got to vote on this new opinion!”
Souter: “Anyone opposed? Yes, Antonin, I see you’re annoyed. Just wait a year, mmkay? … Okay, so it’s settled. We’ll write a new, random opinion on SOCAS, and I’ll tell Clarence what went down while he was out.”
exeunt omnes
ralph124c, might I kindly suggest that you shut the fuck up? By suggesting that this case is all about lawyers arguing technicalities reveals that you really don’t know anything about the subject at all. I would be guilty of the same thing if I were to start a thread pitting, say, “Cold Fusion” and then argued with the physicists that invariably would show up to tell me I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about.
Separation of church and state is a very important issue. If you don’t think so, then it shows ignorance of the subject on your part at best. The government of the United States has not now nor has it ever been a Christian institution. The founding fathers knew that huge numbers of people had died in religious wars in Europe. All of the “sides” of these wars were represented amongst the diverse states. In order to keep the country united and avoid similar wars here on our soil, it was essential to keep church and state separate. And since the founding of our country we have not had any significant religious violence. With the religious makeup of the United States more diverse then ever before, separation of church and state continues to be a significant issue. Of course, because of this diversity, you will always have morons like Moore who want to hark back to a fictional “Christian era” by doing things like he did, and it is important that such misbehavior is struck down.