Its Charlton Heston's Fault!
06-27-2005, 12:03 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,145
You damn dirty apes! You know this whole BS about it being unlawful to display the 10 commandments at courthouses around the country? All these a-holes are arguing whether or not it is lawful or a breach of seperation between church and state and wasting our tax dollars. You know how they got there???? They were ALL promotional ploys setup when the movie "The 10 Commandments" came out. It was the directors idea to display a bunch of these 10 commandments to promote the movie. And now everyone is going ape-**** over it 40 years later.
Don't these ****** have something better to do than to argue over some old movie props?
Don't these ****** have something better to do than to argue over some old movie props?
06-27-2005, 12:33 PM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,145
[quote name='Shane.Trammell' date='Jun 27 2005, 09:26 AM']riiiight... im sure those were only put up bc of the movie. im gonna go ahead and guess that they were there before that movie was made
[/quote]
no, its true.
"Most movie promos are printed on paper. Cecil B. DeMille’s were cast in stone.
The director of the 1956 movie The Ten Commandments worked with the Fraternal Order of Eagles to donate granite copies of the sacred tablets to thousands of U.S. cities—even sending star Charlton Heston to a few California dedication ceremonies.
Now, the Eagles-donated Ten Commandments monument outside Everett’s old City Hall is the target of a U.S. District Court suit by city resident Jesse Card. Filed with the support of the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Card’s suit claims that he finds the monument offensive because “it conveys a message of state endorsement of religion in general, and a specific religious viewpoint in particular …”
Everett City Attorney Mark Soine says the combination of a legal dream team (Fredric C. Tausend and Stephen Smith of Preston Gates & Ellis are under contract with the city) and the tack of arguing the historic value of the monument (the former City Hall is on the National Historic Register) could lead to a legal victory for the city, perhaps on appeal.
But David Skover, professor of constitutional law at Seattle University Law School, isn’t so sure. “In my mind, the Everett case is a simple one,” he says. “Given existing Supreme Court precedent, the city is in violation of the Constitution.”
Lower courts have generally relied on a 1980 ruling upholding an order to remove copies of the commandments posted in Kentucky school classrooms, and the high court has shown little interest in reopening the issue. In 2001, the Supremes denied review to a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to remove a Ten Commandments monument in Elkhart, Indiana. They also passed on a similar Indiana case last year.
Walter Walsh, an associate professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law, isn’t convinced Everett’s claim that the tablets have historical merit will prove substantial enough to topple established precedent. “They might have a better argument,” he quips, “had Charlton Heston actually been there.”
[snapback]731078[/snapback]
[/quote]
no, its true.
"Most movie promos are printed on paper. Cecil B. DeMille’s were cast in stone.
The director of the 1956 movie The Ten Commandments worked with the Fraternal Order of Eagles to donate granite copies of the sacred tablets to thousands of U.S. cities—even sending star Charlton Heston to a few California dedication ceremonies.
Now, the Eagles-donated Ten Commandments monument outside Everett’s old City Hall is the target of a U.S. District Court suit by city resident Jesse Card. Filed with the support of the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Card’s suit claims that he finds the monument offensive because “it conveys a message of state endorsement of religion in general, and a specific religious viewpoint in particular …”
Everett City Attorney Mark Soine says the combination of a legal dream team (Fredric C. Tausend and Stephen Smith of Preston Gates & Ellis are under contract with the city) and the tack of arguing the historic value of the monument (the former City Hall is on the National Historic Register) could lead to a legal victory for the city, perhaps on appeal.
But David Skover, professor of constitutional law at Seattle University Law School, isn’t so sure. “In my mind, the Everett case is a simple one,” he says. “Given existing Supreme Court precedent, the city is in violation of the Constitution.”
Lower courts have generally relied on a 1980 ruling upholding an order to remove copies of the commandments posted in Kentucky school classrooms, and the high court has shown little interest in reopening the issue. In 2001, the Supremes denied review to a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to remove a Ten Commandments monument in Elkhart, Indiana. They also passed on a similar Indiana case last year.
Walter Walsh, an associate professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law, isn’t convinced Everett’s claim that the tablets have historical merit will prove substantial enough to topple established precedent. “They might have a better argument,” he quips, “had Charlton Heston actually been there.”
06-27-2005, 03:27 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vero Beach, Florida
Posts: 674
[quote name='defprun' date='Jun 27 2005, 01:37 PM']We should replace them with **** signs and put bushes picture on them instead.
[/quote]
Why would you wanna give the ***** a bad name, I think they did a pretty good job with that during the second world war.
[snapback]731084[/snapback]
[/quote]
Why would you wanna give the ***** a bad name, I think they did a pretty good job with that during the second world war.