NationStates Jolt Archive

Coming up pretty soon, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments concerning the removal of the 10 Commandments from public and federal buildings.

A decision will be made, once and for all, whether there is or is not a separation of Church and State in the United States.

*takes a deep breath and hopes people will read and pay attention before flaming*

The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States says, in part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

I'm going to ask a couple of questions and will give my thoughts, but I'd like to see general opinion on this. Debate if you want, but let's try to keep the flames to a low roar.

1] Does the placement of a plaque with the 10 Commandments on a public or federal building establish a State religion?

I say no with an "if". If you allow equal space to all religions, then no. If you place the 10 Commandments and say, "Well, all faiths hold these same tennants anyway, so it's good enough", then yes it does. Not all religions abide by the 10 Commandments. Judaism, Christianity and, in some ways, Islam does, but those are not the only three religions in the US. Allowing only the 10 Commandments is a slap in the face to Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and other minority faiths. It also violates a commandment within Judaism to not publicly display graven images.

If you allow the 10 Commandments, you must also allow the Wiccan Rede, passages from Qur'an, etc etc. However, I know from experience, that if you allow the Christians to do something, wild protests and all manner of crazed radicals will show up if you allow equal billing to another group.

It is a bit of a slippery slope, but if you allow the 10 Commandments *and* other religious words of wisdom, Christians (not all, just a few loud ones) will demand theirs be the most prominent. I've seen it happen on local levels.

However, to the original question at hand, I generally say that placing the 10 Commandments on a public building does not violate establishment.

2] Does placing the 10 Commandments on public or federal buildings prohibit the free exercise of your religion?

In a word: No. It actually does not affect me one bit.

3] Is there Constitional grounds for the separation of Church and State?

No ... but there should be. However, one must live in accordance with how things are, not how things should be. It is easy enough to propose Constituional amendments. A little patience and time pays off.

No thoughts yet, eh? How refreshing. :D

ooooh oooh, i have thoughts!!!

I KNOW that the seperation of church and state was put there to protect form a church of england-esq religion. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn;t to keep kids form praying in schools. It wasn;t to keep the 10 commandments off the wall of a courthouse (most of which are basic tenants of US law anyway). They are an early example of a judicial code as well, and they are much smalelr than the code of hammurabi :-)

One of the main reasons pro-ten commandment people state when asked why they should be displayed is that it's the basis for US law. It's clearly not because of the ten, only maybe 4 would pass constitutional muster if proposed as laws. Without that argument, it just comes down to government funds being used to display and maintain a religious symbol. I think that crosses the line between church and state, so I'm opposed to displaying them.

ooooh oooh, i have thoughts!!!

I KNOW that the seperation of church and state was put there to protect form a church of england-esq religion. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn;t to keep kids form praying in schools. It wasn;t to keep the 10 commandments off the wall of a courthouse (most of which are basic tenants of US law anyway). They are an early example of a judicial code as well, and they are much smalelr than the code of hammurabi :-)
Other than the prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery, and bearing false witness, which of the ten commandments is part of US law? More than half of them are not tenants of US law.

The separation of church & state should be absolute. In allowing the Christian god to supersede all others, you surely are breaching the 1st amendment. Worship what you believe in your homes and in your hearts and in your churches, but to include it in public buildings and or public schools is just wrong. There are many gods that many different people believe in. Allowing a Christian god to supersede all those others is a clear violation of religious freedom. It's not that hard to figure out.

1] Does the placement of a plaque with the 10 Commandments on a public or federal building establish a State religion?

No it does not. It does, however, show favoritism towards one over another. Historically speaking, there is a slippery slope that happens whenever you do this. People take their religions very seriously (too serioulsy, IMHO). So much so, that they often abandon all logic in regards to them (and this is why my logic fallacy doesn't count :p).

It is my belief, that they founding fathers correctly believed that a government should be agnostic (not atheist). That it should abandon the question of god and religion entirely. It is much easier just to not have any religious texts or periapts shown than it is to try and show them equal face. Especially when you consider how so many people (Christians especially) would never accept a display of Wiccan or Satanist texts in a court.

There is a hypocracy there.

2] Does placing the 10 Commandments on public or federal buildings prohibit the free exercise of your religion?

If the intent of placing them there is to inspire, cajole, or give direction to judges, then definately YES. I do not follow the Judeo Christian faith. I do not find issue with 4 of the 10 commandments. If a judge or government agent is going to attempt to make laws or decisions with regards to the other 6, then yes you are prohipiting my free exercise.

3] Is there Constitional grounds for the separation of Church and State?

Yes and no. The intent to have seperation of Church and State is definately there. If you read the writings surrounding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You can see that that was definately the intent of the authors (even the one devout Christian among them). After all, they were mostly deists and/or unitarians, both considered heresies by the church at the time. The last thing they wanted was the church having sway in government.

However, the actual text of the Constitution can be read in many ways. A strict Constructionist, who reads the text differently than I do, could find a lot of room for co-mingling of Church and State without violating the 1st Ammendment (or the 4th, 9th, or 10th).

i hope the supreme court disallows these displays

sure they COULD be being put up for historical reasons

but they arent

the sight of good southern baptists weeping over the removal of a GRAVEN IMAGE from a county court house dismayed me. any man manipulating good religious people for his own political ends should be stopped. the public buildings of the united states should be barred from being turned into a religious/political battle ground.

Coming up pretty soon, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments concerning the removal of the 10 Commandments from public and federal buildings.

When did they decide to take this case? Just wondering!

A decision will be made, once and for all, whether there is or is not a separation of Church and State in the United States.

Finally but then, the flames coming from one side or the other will be very very bad. *buys a helmet and gas mask*

*takes a deep breath and hopes people will read and pay attention before flaming*

The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States says, in part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

I'm going to ask a couple of questions and will give my thoughts, but I'd like to see general opinion on this. Debate if you want, but let's try to keep the flames to a low roar.

Lets get this going :D

1] Does the placement of a plaque with the 10 Commandments on a public or federal building establish a State religion?

I say no with an "if". If you allow equal space to all religions, then no.

I'll quote this part and answer it. The 10 Commandments is not primarily a Christian set of rules, but a set of rules handed down to the Jews when they came out of Egypt. Ironically, the Qu'ran aslo has very similar rules. Therefore, displaying the 10 commandments does not violate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It DOES NOT establish a religion since 2 and technically 3 religions use the same set of rules.

snip

Minor faiths? Look up Hinduism sometime. As for the other minor religions, no one is singling them out. They are still free to worship as they please. Having the 10 Commandments at courthouses doesn't affect this at all.

If you allow the 10 Commandments, you must also allow the Wiccan Rede, passages from Qur'an, etc etc. However, I know from experience, that if you allow the Christians to do something, wild protests and all manner of crazed radicals will show up if you allow equal billing to another group.

And other radicals would protest that they are being placed next to Christianity and Jewish document! Damned if you do. Damned if you dont.

It is a bit of a slippery slope, but if you allow the 10 Commandments *and* other religious words of wisdom, Christians (not all, just a few loud ones) will demand theirs be the most prominent. I've seen it happen on local levels.

You could be right but then the other groups would demand the same. Again damned if you do and damned if you dont.

However, to the original question at hand, I generally say that placing the 10 Commandments on a public building does not violate establishment.

I agree whole heartedly.

2] Does placing the 10 Commandments on public or federal buildings prohibit the free exercise of your religion?

Nope. And it won't to other religions either.

In a word: No. It actually does not affect me one bit.

And it won't others. What is your religion if I may ask?

3] Is there Constitional grounds for the separation of Church and State?

Nope!

No ... but there should be. However, one must live in accordance with how things are, not how things should be. It is easy enough to propose Constituional amendments. A little patience and time pays off.

I will agree with your last three sentences.

The separation of church & state should be absolute. In allowing the Christian god to supersede all others, you surely are breaching the 1st amendment. Worship what you believe in your homes and in your hearts and in your churches, but to include it in public buildings and or public schools is just wrong. There are many gods that many different people believe in. Allowing a Christian god to supersede all those others is a clear violation of religious freedom. It's not that hard to figure out.

Oh I love how she mentioned Christian God but forgetting that the 10 Commandments were handed to the Jews. They still live by those as do the Christians.

By having the Commandments prominantly displayed on Govt land, it's implicitly saying the Govt supports these tennants.
Now as 1st Commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", this implies that the Govt doesn't support the right of it's citizens to worship who they please, thus going contrary to the first admentment of free speech.
It gives the impression to all the Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Pagans, etc etc that their beliefs are inferior and not protected by the Govt.

Oh I love how she mentioned Christian God but forgetting that the 10 Commandments were handed to the Jews. They still live by those as do the Christians.
So what's your point? Not everyone in the US is Jewish or Christian. Even if they were, the government couldn't force them to follow at least 6 of the ten commandments. It's an archaic code of laws that's irrelevant to the USA. The only possible purpose for displaying it is religious, and doing that with taxpayer funds is illegal.

One of the main reasons pro-ten commandment people state when asked why they should be displayed is that it's the basis for US law.


And here I was believing that Hammurabi's law was the basis for all modern laws.. in that they were the first to be written down?
Would Hammurabi's law be portrayed alongside these, ten commandments?

Other than the prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery, and bearing false witness, which of the ten commandments is part of US law? More than half of them are not tenants of US law.
The tenth could be considered a basic affirmation of capitalism.

Oh I love how she mentioned Christian God but forgetting that the 10 Commandments were handed to the Jews. They still live by those as do the Christians.

Christians don't.

Jesus brought freedom from the Mosaic Laws... that INCLUDES the Ten Commandments.

When did they decide to take this case? Just wondering!

They made the announcement on Oct. 12, 2004. Which means it will come up for argument soon ... probably by June 2005.

Finally but then, the flames coming from one side or the other will be very very bad. *buys a helmet and gas mask*

Ugh ... I'm with you there. I am not looking forward to the backlash on this one ... either way!

Minor faiths? Look up Hinduism sometime.

I meant minority in the US. SCOTUS decisions don't affect other countries. :) In the US, Hindu is a minority faith.

Damned if you do. Damned if you dont.

That's probably what this will all come down to.

And it won't others. What is your religion if I may ask?

I'm Muslim.

*snip*
1] Does the placement of a plaque with the 10 Commandments on a public or federal building establish a State religion?

I say no with an "if". If you allow equal space to all religions, then no.
*snip*

Does anyone know of any other religious group who's been rejected for putting their religious doctrine on a government building?

If not, then this really has no basis in court. I mean, I'm all for Separation of Church and State, and I personally believe that the government should be totally agnostic and take God out of the pledge and our money, but unless someone else has actually been refused the government can say that they will allow others if they only try.

Christians don't.

Jesus brought freedom from the Mosaic Laws... that INCLUDES the Ten Commandments.
So does that mean you'd be allowed to kill a guy and bang his wife?

[QUOTE=Keruvalia]1] Does the placement of a plaque with the 10 Commandments on a public or federal building establish a State religion?

No. Display of religious icons do not a State-supported religion make. Display of religious icons, both personal and public, should be allowed for government employees and in government buildings. The display of icons has no impact on how they do their job. However, the judge who started this fiasco did cross the line by (correct me if I'm wrong) openly stating that the 10 commandments, in addition to the laws of the land, would dictate his judgements. In doing so, the display has become a symbol of him placing his religious beliefs above the law of the land, and it should be removed. It's a shame, though, that one judge had to ruin such a lovely display.

The most important consideration in this issue should be appearances. If it is a concern to a group, especially a vocal group, that the display means (to them) government being supportive of that religion, then the display should be removed at the wish of those people.

2] Does placing the 10 Commandments on public or federal buildings prohibit the free exercise of your religion?

Not mine, no. In a more general sense, it does not prohibit anyone from practicing their religion, but practicing religion is not the issue. The issue is the possibility of the law of the land being dispensed in a biased manner.

3] Is there Constitional grounds for the separation of Church and State?

I don't know. I'm not familiar enough with the US Constitution to answer this.

If by a separation of Church and State you mean removing all religious icons from government buildings and personal religious icons from government employees, then I would hope that there is no grounds whatsoever.

Does anyone know of any other religious group who's been rejected for putting their religious doctrine on a government building?

If not, then this really has no basis in court. I mean, I'm all for Separation of Church and State, and I personally believe that the government should be totally agnostic and take God out of the pledge and our money, but unless someone else has actually been refused the government can say that they will allow others if they only try.

When the judge in Alabama that started the latest tirade put up his display of the big 10, and all hell broke loose, he was given a choice to either remove the 10 commandments or to place other similar statues and displays up along with them in the rotunda, including some excerpts from the Qu'Ran and Greek Law. He refused (as did many in support of him) stating roughly that, "there is no law higher than G-d's law, and I will not dimean H-s law by allowing others to have equal prominence."

The fact is that religion is taken as an all or nothing thing by many who follow it (though certainly not all and probably not even most). Those who feel this way if given this foothold will not stop until only their own particular brand of insanity is given any prominence.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
-1st Amendment text

Now if you interpret this literally, that would mean that Congress simply cannot pass laws concerning religion.

Putting a monument up doesn't count as making a law, does it? (I'm not particularly pro/anti 10 commandments monument)

i hope the supreme court disallows these displays

sure they COULD be being put up for historical reasons

but they arent

the sight of good southern baptists weeping over the removal of a GRAVEN IMAGE from a county court house dismayed me. any man manipulating good religious people for his own political ends should be stopped. the public buildings of the united states should be barred from being turned into a religious/political battle ground.
And there is the problem in black and white. Not a single damn person puts up the 10 Commandments or any religious rulings for historical reasons, they put them up SPECIFICALLY to display their religious beliefs and challenge the seperation of church and state.

And side note, Roy Moore should be shipping off to some small island in the South Pacific where the nutcase can manipulate the religious for his personal gain all he wants, and hey maybe the natives will eat him.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
-1st Amendment text

Now if you interpret this literally, that would mean that Congress simply cannot pass laws concerning religion.

Putting a monument up doesn't count as making a law, does it? (I'm not particularly pro/anti 10 commandments monument)


When you allow for only a Christian Monument, then it indirectly does.

Since I'm tired of typing out that giving preferential display to one religion in a government setting, especially a courthouse where everyone, including those who do not follow the abrahamic religions, are supposed to be equal under the law, I'm going to point out the kind of hypocracy you only get when you use gross generalizations-

Does it seem to anyone else that the fierce literalists are a little selective? They go word for word on "Congress shall make no law establishing a state religon" but dismiss word for word when guns are gauranteed only for organized militias?
(keep in mind that only works with gross generalizations and I have not personally observed one person stating both views)

dismiss word for word when guns are gauranteed only for organized militias?


Don't get me started. The 2nd Amendment isn't about militias. In order to understand this you have to read the Militia Act and read the writings of the Founding Fathers. They discussed the 2nd Amendment as being a right of the people. I can read the 2nd Amendment as it is, without dropping out the word militia - and if read in the context of the Militia Act and those who wrote the Constitution (and their writings surrounding it), it means an individual right to bear arms. So that people may form a militia - that being only one of the purposes of bearing arms. They all wrote about bearing arms as a means of self-defense - as a natural right.

The same "the people" referred to in the First Amendment. Not a militia, not the States, not the National Guard, not the military - "the people".

They even warned that some people would read it just as you explained above. Hamilton, in particular.

Don't get me started. The 2nd Amendment isn't about militias. In order to understand this you have to read the Militia Act and read the writings of the Founding Fathers. They discussed the 2nd Amendment as being a right of the people. I can read the 2nd Amendment as it is, without dropping out the word militia - and if read in the context of the Militia Act and those who wrote the Constitution (and their writings surrounding it), it means an individual right to bear arms. So that people may form a militia - that being only one of the purposes of bearing arms. They all wrote about bearing arms as a means of self-defense - as a natural right.

The same "the people" referred to in the First Amendment. Not a militia, not the States, not the National Guard, not the military - "the people".

They even warned that some people would read it just as you explained above. Hamilton, in particular.
Fair enough, that means when reading the first amendment you must read the writings of the founding fathers, see Thomas Jefferson here, and must not take a word for word interpretation of the religion part of it

Fair enough, that means when reading the first amendment you must read the writings of the founding fathers, see Thomas Jefferson here, and must not take a word for word interpretation of the religion part of it

Perhaps we should see what they "all" said about the establishment of religion.

I'll read some tonight, but in the meantime, here's an argument that could be made:

The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.

Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution plainly states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States, is reserved to the states or to the people.

Taken together, therefore, the First and 10th Amendments reserve the power to address issues of religious establishment to the different states and their people.

Perhaps we should see what they "all" said about the establishment of religion.
Go ahead

I'll read some tonight, but in the meantime, here's an argument that could be made:

The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.

Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution plainly states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States, is reserved to the states or to the people.

Taken together, therefore, the First and 10th Amendments reserve the power to address issues of religious establishment to the different states and their people.


Standing judicial precedent on the matter: Miller v Texas.
The 14th Amendment (Section 1 obviously) caused the bill of rights to apply to the states as well as the federal government. Priviledges and immunities clause

Not exactly. If that was the case, then say some Bible Belt states would have more theocratic laws.

A wild example. Should you be arrested if you bought birth control in a state that is legal and then carry to a state that is illegal?

States can't be anymore absolute then the feds.

I guess that's why Louisiana is divided into Catholic parishes.

And, in the past, if you lived in a state where abortion was illegal, and you went to a state where it was legal, and returned, they could arrest you.

I have a concealed carry permit for Virginia. While there are a few states that guarantee reciprocity for that permit, if I was to step over the border into Maryland I would be subject to felony arrest.

Curiously, the Federal Government was able to suppress the religious beliefs of the Latter-Day Saints Church, by threatening them with the US Army if they didn't abandon polygamy as a religious practice.

Interesting.

I guess that's why Louisiana is divided into Catholic parishes.

And, in the past, if you lived in a state where abortion was illegal, and you went to a state where it was legal, and returned, they could arrest you.

I have a concealed carry permit for Virginia. While there are a few states that guarantee reciprocity for that permit, if I was to step over the border into Maryland I would be subject to felony arrest.
Lousiana is working under the Napoleonic law code, not common law. However, they cannot do whatever they want and must follow federal law if it contradicts their own. Federal law overrides state law, 14th amendment implies it.

And just because they could doesn't mean it was legal or constitutional to do so. It is unconstituional to charge some one like that.

Curiously, the Federal Government was able to suppress the religious beliefs of the Latter-Day Saints Church, by threatening them with the US Army if they didn't abandon polygamy as a religious practice.

Interesting.
If you have nothing to support yourself, stop trying

If you have nothing to support yourself, stop trying
I have to read the Federalist Papers tonight.

I have to read the Federalist Papers tonight.
Fine, be forewarned however, free practice of religion without state intervention is not the same as inserting your religious beliefs into the government. When were the last time the Jews tried to assert their superiority into our government?

I suppose that's why the Founding Fathers put their Masonic symbols on the money, and on everything in Washington, D.C.

I suppose that's why the Founding Fathers put their Masonic symbols on the money, and on everything in Washington, D.C.
Sometimes I feel talking to a wall would provide a more fruitful conversation

Separation of Church and State

The phrase itself appears in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802.

The Baptist Association had written to President Jefferson regarding a "rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national denomination." Jefferson responded to calm their fears by assuring them that the federal government would not establish any single denomination of Christianity as the National denomination. He wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State."

Notice the phrasing in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Ok, I've read some others - it's clear to me that everyone except Franklin probably thought this way.

So, I'm following my own pattern - read what the Founding Fathers said and go with that to determine what they meant.

So you have to concede me the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to bear arms, and we'll have to say that the 1st Amendment provides for a true separation of church and state.

1] Does the placement of a plaque with the 10 Commandments on a public or federal building establish a State religion?

I would say no, but this is apparently just one piece of christian parphinalia attatched to public and federal buildings. most of these buildings apparently also bear a cross, thus favouring christianity, in particular the form of protestantism that that amendmant is based on, due to persucution by the catholic church, anglican church, etc.
2] Does placing the 10 Commandments on public or federal buildings prohibit the free exercise of your religion?

i have to agree and say no here. but on that note, some people might take offence to them being there, whether being not their religion, or in the case of the jews, as said before, it is something that just isnt displayed in public.

3] Is there Constitional grounds for the separation of Church and State?

I believe that in the amendmant stating freedom of religion there is. whilst not being very open about it, at least not until recently, they still lean towards the church, thus being a quasi religious state. the govournment is supposed to represent the people that voted them, thus their diverse backgrounds. favouring one religion over another does not represent this diversity. and also, i have stated before elsewhere, religion and politics just dont mix.

Separation of Church and State

The phrase itself appears in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802.

The Baptist Association had written to President Jefferson regarding a "rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national denomination." Jefferson responded to calm their fears by assuring them that the federal government would not establish any single denomination of Christianity as the National denomination. He wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State."

Notice the phrasing in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Ok, I've read some others - it's clear to me that everyone except Franklin probably thought this way.

So, I'm following my own pattern - read what the Founding Fathers said and go with that to determine what they meant.

So you have to concede me the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to bear arms, and we'll have to say that the 1st Amendment provides for a true separation of church and state.
Fair enough, doesn't mean I won't dispute everyone wanting the most high powered weapons they can find.

*snip*
the 1st Amendment provides for a true separation of church and state.

Wow. After that I have to give you some respect points! ;)

And don't forget Madison himself. That is if you have sigs disabled......

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"
-- James Madison

Perhaps we should see what they "all" said about the establishment of religion.

Ya know somethin', WL? You are a refreshing change around these parts. It's nice to see someone who argues their side without flaming, give deferential treatment to those on the other side of the argument, and seem to be genuinely nice.

Just a quick "good on you, mate" post.

Separation of Church and State

The phrase itself appears in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802.

The Baptist Association had written to President Jefferson regarding a "rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national denomination." Jefferson responded to calm their fears by assuring them that the federal government would not establish any single denomination of Christianity as the National denomination. He wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State."

Notice the phrasing in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Ok, I've read some others - it's clear to me that everyone except Franklin probably thought this way.

So, I'm following my own pattern - read what the Founding Fathers said and go with that to determine what they meant.

So you have to concede me the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to bear arms, and we'll have to say that the 1st Amendment provides for a true separation of church and state.
Wow, that gave me a warm fuzzy.

I may stop reading the forums for today so I can spend some time with this feeling...

They made the announcement on Oct. 12, 2004. Which means it will come up for argument soon ... probably by June 2005.

It better be by June 2005! I think they leave in June for awhile. I swear they keep the same school calendar as the rest of us.

Ugh ... I'm with you there. I am not looking forward to the backlash on this one ... either way!

Here here. Hope the riot police are ready.

I meant minority in the US. SCOTUS decisions don't affect other countries. :) In the US, Hindu is a minority faith.

True but minor faiths aren't at all affected anyway. They still have the freedom to worship as they please.

That's probably what this will all come down to.

Yep.

I'm Muslim.

Cool!

Standing judicial precedent on the matter: Miller v Texas.
The 14th Amendment (Section 1 obviously) caused the bill of rights to apply to the states as well as the federal government. Priviledges and immunities clause

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Where in XIV Amendment section 1 cause the Bill of Rights to apply to the states as well as the Federal Government? And why does the XIV Amendment factor into this when it deals with Citizenship for EX-SLAVES!!!!

Where in XIV Amendment section 1 cause the Bill of Rights to apply to the states as well as the Federal Government? And why does the XIV Amendment factor into this when it deals with Citizenship for EX-SLAVES!!!!
You can go argument with the Supreme Court because Miller v Texas leads me not to give a damn about your opinion

Oh and to boot, please point out where it refers to slaves and why it doesn't or can't apply to any one or anything else? Priviledges and immunities clause says nothing about slaves, it just says persons

Lousiana is working under the Napoleonic law code, not common law. However, they cannot do whatever they want and must follow federal law if it contradicts their own. Federal law overrides state law, 14th amendment implies it.

Wrong! The XIV Amendment DOES NOT imply it. I suggest you reread the 14 Amendment. I have it here infront of me! If you want me to quote it, just say the word.

And just because they could doesn't mean it was legal or constitutional to do so. It is unconstituional to charge some one like that.

Under the Constitution, the State can do what it wants provided it doesn't violate the US Constitution. Dividing up LA into catholic parishes doesn't violate it.

I have to read the Federalist Papers tonight.

I have them too WL! Great piece of writings they are.

Wrong! The XIV Amendment DOES NOT imply it. I suggest you reread the 14 Amendment. I have it here infront of me! If you want me to quote it, just say the word.
Are you on a time warp I am unaware of? You just stated it. The supreme court of the united states disagrees with you



Under the Constitution, the State can do what it wants provided it doesn't violate the US Constitution. Dividing up LA into catholic parishes doesn't violate it.
They are not divided up into catholic parishes, due to the nature of Lousisiana's founding parishes are the exact same as counties.

The real question behind all of this is "can there be a divided loyalty in a state system" ? Can the laws of religions be at display in a building that is supposed to enforce the laws of a state? And also the question must be asked, what those religious laws really stand for. And the bitter truth is: those commandments are the starting point of an ideologically motivated ethnic cleansing of foreign territory by the followers of the commandments' alleged originator. The atrocities commited by the Israelites in Canaan are the result of their obedience to Yah and his rules. The Ten Commandments are clearly not something to hang onto the wall of a courthouse representing an allegedly free and democratic society.

You can go argument with the Supreme Court because Miller v Texas leads me not to give a damn about your opinion

Oh and to boot, please point out where it refers to slaves and why it doesn't or can't apply to any one or anything else? Priviledges and immunities clause says nothing about slaves, it just says persons

Hence my recourse to the Founding Fathers. Miller and Lemon and other cases concerning the separation have already been discussed to death.

Yes, it IS a separation of church and state. A Wall, no less.

Jefferson in particular didn't want one religion to get its feet up on the podium more than any other - so no one gets to.

Christians are probably better served just doing their religion the way they practice without any Federal or State assistance.

I, for one, have a problem with the idea that at some point in the future, some government bureaucrat might tell me how to pray.

You can go argument with the Supreme Court because Miller v Texas leads me not to give a damn about your opinion

The Supreme Court has used the 14 Amendment excessively. There is nothing in the Constitution about this. The Judicial System shouldn't even be involved because that is a violation of seperation of church and state. What keeps me from saying that they want Atheism to be the state religion?

Oh and to boot, please point out where it refers to slaves and why it doesn't or can't apply to any one or anything else? Priviledges and immunities clause says nothing about slaves, it just says persons

The 13, 14, and 15 amendments deals with slavery. The 13 Amendment Abolishes it. the 14 Amendment gave them citizenship and the 15 amendment gave them the right to vote.

If you want more on the 14th let me know and I'll post all of it for ya since you obviously don't have a clue as to what it says.

Are you on a time warp I am unaware of? You just stated it. The supreme court of the united states disagrees with you

And the constitution disagress with the US Suprem Court!


They are not divided up into catholic parishes, due to the nature of Lousisiana's founding parishes are the exact same as counties.

But are called parishes, not counties. How do you know that the parishes LA has, were not divided originionaly into Catholic Parishes when they started?

The Supreme Court has used the 14 Amendment excessively. There is nothing in the Constitution about this. The Judicial System shouldn't even be involved because that is a violation of seperation of church and state. What keeps me from saying that they want Atheism to be the state religion?



The 13, 14, and 15 amendments deals with slavery. The 13 Amendment Abolishes it. the 14 Amendment gave them citizenship and the 15 amendment gave them the right to vote.

If you want more on the 14th let me know and I'll post all of it for ya since you obviously don't have a clue as to what it says.
Atheism is NOT a religion, there are atheist religions, but atheism in and of itself is NOT a religion. Having unconstitional religious icons removed from buildings does NOT set up a state religion of atheism, whatever the fuck that is. The thirsteenth amendment is the ONLY amendment which names slavery, the other amendments have other parts to them and apply to more than just slaves. Shit, even the 14th amendment section speaks of more than just citizenship, how did you do on the comprehensive reading part of the SAT?

And the constitution disagress with the US Suprem Court!




But are called parishes, not counties. How do you know that the parishes LA has, were not divided originionaly into Catholic Parishes when they started?
1) Back up your statement
2) How do you know they were? OK, thanks bye.

Atheism is NOT a religion, there are atheist religions, but atheism in and of itself is NOT a religion. Having unconstitional religious icons removed from buildings does NOT set up a state religion of atheism, whatever the fuck that is. The thirsteenth amendment is the ONLY amendment which names slavery, the other amendments have other parts to them and apply to more than just slaves. Shit, even the 14th amendment section speaks of more than just citizenship, how did you do on the comprehensive reading part of the SAT?

Is that last sentence supposed to be insult? I call it flamebait. As for the 14 and 15 amendments, it dealt primarily with the blacks. Also the 14 amendment stated that ex-Confed officers and office holders couldn't run for public office. The 15 amendment gave the blacks the right to vote. Yea there were free blacks in the North AND in the South and the 13th amendment dealt with slavery. The 14 gave them (being the blacks) citizenship and the 15 the right to vote. I was using slavery as a progessive term because they were all done during reconstruction and these 3 amendments allowed these rebellous states back into the Union.

1) Back up your statement

All I have to do is flip through some past SCOTUS decisions. Most of whom violate the 14 amendment! R v W for one! This definitely flies into the face of the 14 Amendment.

2) How do you know they were? OK, thanks bye.

I asked you how you knew that they weren't!

Is that last sentence supposed to be insult? I call it flamebait. As for the 14 and 15 amendments, it dealt primarily with the blacks. Also the 14 amendment stated that ex-Confed officers and office holders couldn't run for public office. The 15 amendment gave the blacks the right to vote. Yea there were free blacks in the North AND in the South and the 13th amendment dealt with slavery. The 14 gave them (being the blacks) citizenship and the 15 the right to vote. I was using slavery as a progessive term because they were all done during reconstruction and these 3 amendments allowed these rebellous states back into the Union.
Amendment 14 Section 1 "priviledges and immunities clause"

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


And I call it a fair and relevant question regarding your inability to read any more than what you perceive to be in there that relates to your argument

Amendment 14 Section 1 "priviledges and immunities clause"

Yes I see it. How does it prove your arguement though? It doesn't. BTW: it isn't a clause. Its part of section 1! I suggest you reread what a clause is.

The rest of the statement is ignored

Yes I see it. How does it prove your arguement though? It doesn't. BTW: it isn't a clause. Its part of section 1! I suggest you reread what a clause is.

The rest of the statement is ignored
1) Technically correct but irrelevant to the point
2) How does it help my point? Hmm.. Well lets see, If the Bill of Rights says everyone has the right to freedom of speech and the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, that would leave the states the ability to abridge the right to frredom of speech, THUS abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States protected by the Constitution supposedly

1) Technically correct but irrelevant to the point

No its not irrelevent.

2) How does it help my point? Hmm.. Well lets see, If the Bill of Rights says everyone has the right to freedom of speech and the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, that would leave the states the ability to abridge the right to frredom of speech, THUS abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States protected by the Constitution supposedly

State law CANNOT CONFLICT with the US Constitution. It has always been that way. Therefore, it has always applied to the states. So I will ask you one more time, how does it prove your point? You also realize that they are talking about people that become citizens don't you?

So does that mean you'd be allowed to kill a guy and bang his wife?

Not based on the laws of the nation where I live... nor according to the Christian teachings of Jesus.

He essentially revoked the Old Commandments, and replaced them with two new ones, which basically boil down to "love God" and "love your neighbour"... and I don't think he was implying 'love your neighbour's wife, while he's out of town'... but I could be wrong.. after all, his best friend was a prostitute...

Jesus was a pretty big advocate of the Golden Rule. If you wouldn't want to be murdered, don't murder people.

But - of course - 'biblical law' is only a tiny part of our national laws, in the west. It is only a certain type of mind that HONESTLY believes that Europeans had NO law before they 'discovered' Middle East theology.

Perhaps we should see what they "all" said about the establishment of religion.

Every one of them said that Religion, the State, and the People are all greatly benefited when there is a clear and impermiable seperation between church and state. Even the one devout Christian among them. They all thought that the state should not support the church in any way, and that the church as a whole (not of course individual members) should ever have sway in what the government does. When you allow it to happen, everyone suffers.

I could point this out to you in all the Federalist Papers, as well as the other writings of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Samuel Adams, etc if you would like specific cites, but a simple google of "Seperation of Church and State" with any one of their names will give you thousands of direct quotes from each of them in regards to the subject. You may also want to add Connecticut to the search string, as it will bring up a specific case of how they dealt with an individual state and it's preference for a single religion.

Every one of them said that Religion, the State, and the People are all greatly benefited when there is a clear and impermiable seperation between church and state. Even the one devout Christian among them. They all thought that the state should not support the church in any way, and that the church as a whole (not of course individual members) should ever have sway in what the government does. When you allow it to happen, everyone suffers.

I could point this out to you in all the Federalist Papers, as well as the other writings of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Samuel Adams, etc if you would like specific cites, but a simple google of "Seperation of Church and State" with any one of their names will give you thousands of direct quotes from each of them in regards to the subject. You may also want to add Connecticut to the search string, as it will bring up a specific case of how they dealt with an individual state and it's preference for a single religion.


I think if you read further in the thread, you'll see where I conceded this.

State law CANNOT CONFLICT with the US Constitution. It has always been that way. Therefore, it has always applied to the states. So I will ask you one more time, how does it prove your point? You also realize that they are talking about people that become citizens don't you?
This conversation is no longer fruitful, now you are jsut contradicting yourself in addition to further proving your ignorance on the subject matter

This conversation is no longer fruitful, now you are jsut contradicting yourself in addition to further proving your ignorance on the subject matter

Dude, it's always been that way. Since the Constitution was founded it has always been that you.

You sir are the ignorant one.

Dude, it's always been that way. Since the Constitution was founded it has always been that you.

You sir are the ignorant one.
Your drivel isn't even amusing unlike some of the people on this site, you can say 'Ello to my ignore list

And here I was believing that Hammurabi's law was the basis for all modern laws.. in that they were the first to be written down?
Would Hammurabi's law be portrayed alongside these, ten commandments?

What a great idea! It's been a while since our little patriarchy has been bold enough to actually proclaim something like "If a woman contradicts her husband, her teeth shall be smashed out with bricks." out loud. I'm all for it.

C'mon, Christians. How would you like it if the government suddenly came out and said that only the Wiccan Rede was allowed to be shown in public facilities? It's all or nothing.

Your drivel isn't even amusing unlike some of the people on this site, you can say 'Ello to my ignore list

Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judgesin every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary nothwithstanding.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. All laws must follow the Constitution.

Repeated for Corneliu's benefit

I go back to the Founding fathers - all of whom were in favor of the separation (Franklin comes the closest to objecting to it, but does not).

Separation of Church and State

The phrase itself appears in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802.

The Baptist Association had written to President Jefferson regarding a "rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national denomination." Jefferson responded to calm their fears by assuring them that the federal government would not establish any single denomination of Christianity as the National denomination. He wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State."

Notice the phrasing in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Repeated for Corneliu's benefit

I go back to the Founding fathers - all of whom were in favor of the separation (Franklin comes the closest to objecting to it, but does not).

Separation of Church and State

The phrase itself appears in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802.

The Baptist Association had written to President Jefferson regarding a "rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national denomination." Jefferson responded to calm their fears by assuring them that the federal government would not establish any single denomination of Christianity as the National denomination. He wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State."

Notice the phrasing in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Yep! I know. However, it seems that it is trying to be used by both sides of the aisle.

Other than the prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery, and bearing false witness, which of the ten commandments is part of US law? More than half of them are not tenants of US law.
Adultery is illegal in America??????

Adultery is illegal in America??????
I think it is in some states, but I could be wrong.

I think it is in some states, but I could be wrong.
It's never enforced though, even in the backwards hick states that still have it on the books.

Where in XIV Amendment section 1 cause the Bill of Rights to apply to the states as well as the Federal Government? And why does the XIV Amendment factor into this when it deals with Citizenship for EX-SLAVES!!!!
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;".


The privileges of the citizens of the United States being the rights granted to them. Actually, all rights not taken away from them by the Constitution (Amendment 9)

Seperation is essential, otherwise eventually minorities will be suppressed. The US should do one of two things, allow upon appeal any religious group to put up something if one for a different religion already exists, or ban all religious groups from placing things on public property. Then either give all religious establishments tax exemption, or stop giving churchs tax exemption.

When did they decide to take this case? Just wondering!



Finally but then, the flames coming from one side or the other will be very very bad. *buys a helmet and gas mask*



Lets get this going :D



I'll quote this part and answer it. The 10 Commandments is not primarily a Christian set of rules, but a set of rules handed down to the Jews when they came out of Egypt. Ironically, the Qu'ran aslo has very similar rules. Therefore, displaying the 10 commandments does not violate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It DOES NOT establish a religion since 2 and technically 3 religions use the same set of rules.



Minor faiths? Look up Hinduism sometime. As for the other minor religions, no one is singling them out. They are still free to worship as they please. Having the 10 Commandments at courthouses doesn't affect this at all.



And other radicals would protest that they are being placed next to Christianity and Jewish document! Damned if you do. Damned if you dont.



You could be right but then the other groups would demand the same. Again damned if you do and damned if you dont.



I agree whole heartedly.



Nope. And it won't to other religions either.



And it won't others. What is your religion if I may ask?



Nope!



I will agree with your last three sentences.


as a non-christian, very pagan person..it would really only 'affect' me if, when in a courthouse I was asked to swear on the Bible. I can't, it would be dishonest to do so because I don't believe in it.

By having the Commandments prominantly displayed on Govt land, it's implicitly saying the Govt supports these tennants.
Now as 1st Commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", this implies that the Govt doesn't support the right of it's citizens to worship who they please, thus going contrary to the first admentment of free speech.
It gives the impression to all the Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Pagans, etc etc that their beliefs are inferior and not protected by the Govt.


ooo, good one..I gotta remember that...

as a non-christian, very pagan person..it would really only 'affect' me if, when in a courthouse I was asked to swear on the Bible. I can't, it would be dishonest to do so because I don't believe in it.

They don't do that anymore. All you have to do is raise your hand and say I do.

SCOTUS should follow its own recent precedents and look to the international community for guidance. Most countries still have an official religion, therefore the wall should be torn down and the commandments should go up.

SCOTUS should follow its own recent precedents and look to the international community for guidance. Most countries still have an official religion, therefore the wall should be torn down and the commandments should go up.

Ironically, they used international opinion regarding Juvenial Executions. Though I agreed with their decision, I don't agree with using international opinion for basis for a decision.

Ironically, they used international opinion regarding Juvenial Executions. Though I agreed with their decision, I don't agree with using international opinion for basis for a decision.

Yeah, that was sort of my point. Frankly, they just pull things out of thier ass these days, they are no longer a court but an unaccountable ruling body.

One day we are going to look back at this and actual agree with most of what Scalia warned about.

(Regardless of how you actually feel about juvenile executions).

Ironically, they used international opinion regarding Juvenial Executions. Though I agreed with their decision, I don't agree with using international opinion for basis for a decision.
Most of the case wasn't based on that. Have you read the majority decision?

Yeah, that was sort of my point. Frankly, they just pull things out of thier ass these days, they are no longer a court but an unaccountable ruling body.

One day we are going to look back at this and actual agree with most of what Scalia warned about.

(Regardless of how you actually feel about juvenile executions).

Yea! Scalia has warned us about plenty of things because of the court's action.

Your right. They're really are unaccountable and no one checks them. They maybe the Supreme Court but even they can make mistakes and someone needs to correct their mistakes.

Most of the case wasn't based on that. Have you read the majority decision?

It doesn't matter if it was or not. They cited it. They included it in their opinion. Wether it was soly based on it or not is irrelevent. No foreign court opinion should have any bearing on the US Supreme Court opinion.

Yea! Scalia has warned us about plenty of things because of the court's action.

Your right. They're really are unaccountable and no one checks them. They maybe the Supreme Court but even they can make mistakes and someone needs to correct their mistakes.


Well they used to have deference and restraint, and defer ruling on constitutional matters unless absolutely unavoidable.

Mind you they also used to "speak with one voice". Those days are gone too.

It doesn't matter if it was or not. They cited it. They included it in their opinion. Wether it was soly based on it or not is irrelevent. No foreign court opinion should have any bearing on the US Supreme Court opinion.
Ahem.
"The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own
conclusions."

Ahem.
"The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own
conclusions."

As I said stated before! It may not control it but they didn't have to state it either. By stating it, it looks suspicious even though they put what they did after it.

Ahem.
"The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own
conclusions."

Which to a lawyer writing a brief becomes:

"Indeed, even the Supreme Court of the United States has looked favorably upon the opinion of the internation comunity as a source of guidance when interpreting US constitutional law. In [incert citation here], Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority stated 'The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.' CITE ___ at _____. "

Then some dipshit judge on the federal bench who wants to rule for that lawyer incoporates the reasoning, with some waffling statement about internation opinion as a valid controling authority in some cases.

Next thing you know "the opinion of the international comunity" has become the same thing as my other bete noir in jurisprudence, legislative intent. (If you cannot write a fucking statute clearly it is not the job of the courts to revist the conference comitee and re-write completely for you, get new legislators.)

If he didn't need it, he should have kept his big fat fucking mouth shut about it.

Which to a lawyer writing a brief becomes:

"Indeed, even the Supreme Court of the United States has looked favorably upon the opinion of the internation comunity as a source of guidance when interpreting US constitutional law. In [incert citation here], Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority stated 'The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.' CITE ___ at _____. "

Then some dipshit judge on the federal bench who wants to rule for that lawyer incoporates the reasoning, with some waffling statement about internation opinion as a valid controling authority in some cases.

Next thing you know "the opinion of the international comunity" has become the same thing as my other bete noir in jurisprudence, legislative intent. (If you cannot write a fucking statute clearly it is not the job of the courts to revist the conference comitee and re-write completely for you, get new legislators.)

If he didn't need it, he should have kept his big fat fucking mouth shut about it. Which would get overturned by a higher court. You know that. Granted, it shouldn't be in there, but it is, and it isn't a reason to call for overturning roper because of it.

Scalia warned about.

Eww now there is a pillar of integrity.

Sorry but you have to provide more then that liars claims.
--edit

So are you one of those. The court is crap because it isn't all conservative types?

The Constitution actually says nothing about separation of Church and State. It provides us with protection to worship as we choose. God has been a vital part of our country from day one. It was, in fact, one of the two major issues that brought about the birth of our nation. Giving in to atheism, which IS by definition a religion according to Webster, or other forces that would undermine the principles the United States was founded on, is paramount to saying the Constitution is irrelevant in today's society. The liberals keep chipping away at it but, guess what? She's a strong old lady, just as freedom is, and will withstand the sometimes misguided, mostly deliberate efforts to defeat it.
God bless America! :)

So what's your point? Not everyone in the US is Jewish or Christian. Even if they were, the government couldn't force them to follow at least 6 of the ten commandments. It's an archaic code of laws that's irrelevant to the USA. The only possible purpose for displaying it is religious, and doing that with taxpayer funds is illegal.


wow, at least there's something you seem to have your head on straight about...well said! :)

so glad I can agree with you on this at least...:P

The Constitution actually says nothing about separation of Church and State. It provides us with protection to worship as we choose. God has been a vital part of our country from day one. It was, in fact, one of the two major issues that brought about the birth of our nation. Giving in to atheism, which IS by definition a religion according to Webster, or other forces that would undermine the principles the United States was founded on, is paramount to saying the Constitution is irrelevant in today's society. The liberals keep chipping away at it but, guess what? She's a strong old lady, just as freedom is, and will withstand the sometimes misguided, mostly deberate efforts to defeat it.
God bless America! :)

No it isn't. Atheism has no tenets, it is just the denial that there is a god. That's it. You don't believe in anything.

re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.


And how does atheism 'undermine' the authority of the constitution?

They don't do that anymore. All you have to do is raise your hand and say I do.


oh, well that's nice :) no worries then...

No it isn't. Atheism has no tenets, it is just the denial that there is a god. That's it. You don't believe in anything.

From Webster: "re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)



1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


All atheists I've come into contact with are certainly zealous even though wrong.

The Constitution actually says nothing about separation of Church and State. It provides us with protection to worship as we choose.

Psst. The fellow that wrote it talked about the seperation so guess what he meant? However, you are right, you are protected to worship and you are protected from other religions from dictating things as well.


God has been a vital part of our country from day one. It was, in fact, one of the two major issues that brought about the birth of our nation.


Ohhh noooo the Myth of the Pilgrims. Religious freedom was not the reason they came here. The English Seperatists(you call them Pilgrims) had it in Holland. They didn't want to be integrated into Dutch society so the came here.

For all the talk of Religious freedom, they didn't practice it. They set up a quasi theocracy where challenging the elders got you booted. The tribel people were executed for violating the laws of the elders. And they actually robbed graves......

Giving in to atheism, which IS by definition a religion according to Webster,

Webster?!?!?! Which one are you reading? Cletus Webster?


or other forces that would undermine the principles the United States was founded on, is paramount to saying the Constitution is irrelevant in today's society.

Nobody is saying the Constitution is irrelevant.


The liberals keep chipping away at it but, guess what? She's a strong old lady, just as freedom is, and will withstand the sometimes misguided, mostly deberate efforts to defeat it.
God bless America! :)

Wow. :rolleyes:

From Webster: "re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


Ahh but you have descrived the fervor of their viewpoints.

You don't see the Atheists meeting at locations to perform services. What's the method of worship? What are the Rituals?

From Webster: "re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)



1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


All atheists I've come into contact with are certainly zealous even though wrong.

Definition one is the commonly accepted definition and how you are trying to use it. Besides, how are atheists zealots?

Which would get overturned by a higher court. You know that. Granted, it shouldn't be in there, but it is, and it isn't a reason to call for overturning roper because of it.

No, it may not. Take for example, as I mentioned, the practice of determining legistlative intent as a method of statutory construction. That started as dicta too, used in order to shore up a weak opinion in a higher court. Over time it has become an acceptable method of re-writing statutes from whole cloth, and the supreme court finds it wholly acceptable. Yet historically it is not clear that it is a legitimate method to do so and nor have any legislatures authorized it. (Additionally it presents many problems in that it is almost impossible to really determin what the legislative intent actually was owing to the paucity of sources and records that can be referenced).

So from what was originally a piece of throw away dicta, US courts have created for themselves a whole new power that was never authorized by the people or the constitution.

And I say again, if the opinion did not need that international opinion crap, why put it in? Personally I agree that we probably shouldn't execute minors, but that is no excuse for a badly written opinion.

I would also note, that thanks to O'Connors usual antics, this is less than a bright line rule, so this issue will be revisted soon for clarification.

Eww now there is a pillar of integrity.

Sorry but you have to provide more then that liars claims.
--edit

So are you one of those. The court is crap because it isn't all conservative types?

No I am not one of those. And I don't accept everything Scalia says either. I do however believe in judicial deference and preserving legitimate authority on which to base court rulings. I also agree with him that the rule of law is a law of rules, not some catchphrase to be bandied about as is vogue with the current left and right.

(But that is because I have a secret socialist streak running in me and I don't like anti-majoritarian priviledged institutions having more power than a democratically elected body.)

From Webster: "re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)



1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


All atheists I've come into contact with are certainly zealous even though wrong.

What many people misunderstand when they misuse the 4th sense of 'religion' in that definiton is the idea that "religion's" connotation there is metaphorical.

A perfect analogy is the term "feline," which is defined as:
Main Entry: fe·line
Pronunciation: 'fE-"lIn
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin felinus, from felis
1 : of, relating to, or affecting cats or the cat family
2 : resembling a cat: as a : sleekly graceful b : SLY, TREACHEROUS c : STEALTHY

This word can be applied correctly when describing a sleek and graceful woman. For example: "Jane was positively feline in her black dress."


This applies to the fallacy of equivocation mentioned regarding "religious" in this way:
A sign worded "No canine or feline animals permitted" would not ban a sleek and graceful woman from entry, even though a fallacy can be employed to 'prove' that the woman is indeed a "feline animal."

When the word "religious" is applied to beliefs which are not religious, it is used to mean that the zeal with which the beliefs are pusued is similar to that with which religious beliefs are generally pursued.

It is important to remember that the word "irreligious" means "atheist."
On a pedantic note, "atheist" was first known to be used in 1568, "irreligious" in 1561. (OED)


My amateur linguist/philologist's two cents.

From Webster: "re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I told you! The Republican Party is a religion!

I told you! The Republican Party is a religion!

It isn't a religion Swimmingpool!

Now, I'm off to play The Sims 2: Universities

No I am not one of those. And I don't accept everything Scalia says either. I do however believe in judicial deference and preserving legitimate authority on which to base court rulings. I also agree with him that the rule of law is a law of rules, not some catchphrase to be bandied about as is vogue with the current left and right.

(But that is because I have a secret socialist streak running in me and I don't like anti-majoritarian priviledged institutions having more power than a democratically elected body.)

Fair enough! ;)

It isn't a religion Swimmingpool!

I'm aware of that, I was just trying to show how ridiculous Castle Creek's argument was. He thinks that any zealously pursued cause, principle or activity is a "religion".

I'm aware of that, I was just trying to show how ridiculous Castle Creek's argument was. He thinks that any zealously pursued cause, principle or activity is a "religion".

Just like you could consider the Democratic Party a religion too but we all know that it isn't. Hell, any political party could be considered a religion :D

Just like you could consider the Democratic Party a religion too but we all know that it isn't. Hell, any political party could be considered a religion :D
Yes, any political party surely could under those extremely wide terms.

Yes, any political party surely could under those extremely wide terms.

Hmmm does the goverment violate the establishement clause? ;)

Hmmm does the goverment violate the establishement clause? ;)

Probably not. But it should. :)

From Webster: "re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)



1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


All atheists I've come into contact with are certainly zealous even though wrong.

I have never met an Atheist who 'pursued' Atheism 'zealously'. You are an Atheist because you DON'T believe in god... how do you go about doing THAT zealously?

Wake up in the morning: "Man, I feel like REALLY REALLY not believing in god today..."

I have never met an Atheist who 'pursued' Atheism 'zealously'. You are an Atheist because you DON'T believe in god... how do you go about doing THAT zealously?

Wake up in the morning: "Man, I feel like REALLY REALLY not believing in god today..."Essentially agreeing with you, but using you as a hook to hang my reply on, I've said it before and I'll say it again (though never quite the same way each time, for variety's sake), "atheism" has three parts: "a-" for 'not', "the" as the active root of "god"/etc and "-ism" relating to the belief.

There's "(athe)-ists" who are people who have a "belief" in "nogod" and "a-(theists)" who are people who have "no" "beliefingod". The former I /might/ be tempted to call a religion, though the definition is strained to breaking point in doing so, the latter might be termed as just over the border from 'sceptical' or 'strong' Agnosticism (in the wide continuum of Agnosticism) by others.


Back on topic, and bearing in mind that I'm not a US citizen/resident so it doesn't affect me directly, you need to allow either all or no religious symbology, not just the 10 Commandments. And if you have a 'free range' situation, you must give any religion (with more than a certain representation in the local/national census figures?) the opportunity to contribute and all who do must use symbology not objectionable to any other qualified religion. (If unanimous agreement from the respective representatives is needed then you either get everyone playing silly-buggers and vetoing everyone else's contribution out of spite in secret ballots, which is Ok with me, or everyone acts sensibly, which is what I'm aiming at.)

Fixtures and fittings from history (decorative panels from the time of the courthouse construction) I'd personally leave as long as they weren't too lurid, and especially if they nod their heads at multiple belief systems, but I wouldn't look to balance them out by adding "religions previously missed" unless tastefully done in keeping with the original (and not destroying/defacing any original art). [Edit: and I've no suggestions as to how the assessments are made regarding how "historical", "lurid", "defacing" and various other terms are applied...]

But, as I said, I'm not West-Pondian, so I'm willing to concede that my opinion doesn't mesh with a majority of those who are directly affected, constitutional proof (and other evidence) notwithstanding.

let's try to keep the flames to a low roar.

Wishful thinking, I fear. Just wait.

1] Does the placement of a plaque with the 10 Commandments on a public or federal building establish a State religion?[/quote]

There are too many religions to give them all equal space, I believe. See the Sumerian faith (which I didn't even know still existed) in the other thread, and the numerous denominations of them Chaos folks (who are each going to insist on their own denomination getting equal space as well).

Concerning pluralism and equal representation, I found this article (http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/fangz/entry/talk_about_religion) by a friend of mine quite interesting. What is the place for atheists and agnostics in a "equal representation for all religions" system? We don't exactly have any tenets - are you going to put up quotes by Thomas Paine or Charles Darwin? :)

And indeed, as you say

if you allow the 10 Commandments *and* other religious words of wisdom, Christians (not all, just a few loud ones) will demand theirs be the most prominent.

Point is moot. They are not going to accept that compromise.

2] Does placing the 10 Commandments on public or federal buildings prohibit the free exercise of your religion?

I don't feel it would violate my rights to religion, but it would be a symbol to me that the government that paid for it/allowed it to be put up favoured this religion above others. Especially in a court case (as most of this will be), I would feel that as an agnostic, the judgement would be biased toward a Christian opponent in court.

3] Is there Constitional grounds for the separation of Church and State?

No ... but there should be.
[/QUOTE]


Definitely agree. However, doesn't this amendment qualify as Constituational Grounds?

Essentially agreeing with you, but using you as a hook to hang my reply on, I've said it before and I'll say it again (though never quite the same way each time, for variety's sake), "atheism" has three parts: "a-" for 'not', "the" as the active root of "god"/etc and "-ism" relating to the belief.

There's "(athe)-ists" who are people who have a "belief" in "nogod" and "a-(theists)" who are people who have "no" "beliefingod". The former I /might/ be tempted to call a religion, though the definition is strained to breaking point in doing so, the latter might be termed as just over the border from 'sceptical' or 'strong' Agnosticism (in the wide continuum of Agnosticism) by others.


I'm beginning to think that there really are just a-theists... (what we conventionally call 'soft' Atheists), and that 'Hard' Atheists are just 'Soft' Atheists with more convincing reasons...

Kind of like... Agnostic Atheists and 'Gnostic Atheists'... Thuse, both groups of Atheist lack belief in any gods... but the 'Soft' Atheist stops there (effectively), while the Hard Atheist (what I am calling here, a Gnostic Atheist) believes they have enough evidence against gods, that they can CLAIM certainty that there are none.

Personally - I see that as slightly flawed, since I don't accept that you can EVER truly prove anything by non-detection.

Curious thing, though... you only have to make these distinctions in religion.

Do you believe in ghosts? Yes or no. Very rarely, I would imagine, does it come down to the "well, I don't NOT believe in ghosts" definitions. :)

Hmmm does the goverment violate the establishement clause? ;)
:eek:
The government by nature violates its own tenets!
We need a revolution!!!

We don't exactly have any tenets - are you going to put up quotes by Thomas Paine or Charles Darwin? :)


I know what you MEAN, here... Atheists have no churches, no idols, no scripture... so WHAT do they get to represent them, in the 'everyone-gets-a-monument' stakes...?

The only problem I see here is, not all Atheists believe in ... for example... evolution... any more than all Christians believe in 'Creationism'.

If we (Atheists) get a monument, I guess it would have to be a pedestal with 'god' written on it, but NO statue... maybe?

If we (Atheists) get a monument, I guess it would have to be a pedestal with 'god' written on it, but NO statue... maybe?
But that might be construed to imply that you believed there was a space that a god was needed to fill, which I think most atheists do not believe.

But that might be construed to imply that you believed there was a space that a god was needed to fill, which I think most atheists do not believe.

It could be construed that way... or as us (Atheists, again) saying... well, we have the same amount of space you guys have, and we chose not to make anything of it...?

That's the problem, though, isn't it...? What DOES the Atheist get to construct a statue to? We aren't worried about creating graven images... we just don't have anything to make them OF?

Personally, my vote goes to a statue of John Cusack. He IS a god. :)

Well they used to have deference and restraint, and defer ruling on constitutional matters unless absolutely unavoidable.

Mind you they also used to "speak with one voice". Those days are gone too.


I'm curious as to when you think these "good old days" occurred. (Particularly as you seem to praise Scalia, who tends to write his own concurrence or dissent more than others -- despite having a majority of Republicans and conservatives on the Court.)

Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judgesin every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary nothwithstanding.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. All laws must follow the Constitution.

OK, I had to explain this before in a different thread. So I'll do it again.

I understand that this is a confusing issue. It is both counter to common wisdom about the Bill of Rights and somewhat counter-intutive. Nonetheless, the BoR did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was passed and not all provisions of the BoR have been incorporated through the 14th to apply to the states.

1. The original Constitution established and limited the national government. Although federal law within the power granted by the Constitution supercedes state law, the Consitution -- and particularly the Bill of Rights -- did not limit the powers of the states.

In the first Congress in 1789, Congressman James Madison had submitted proposed amendments for the Bill of Rights. One of Madison's proposed amendments would have prohibited states from violating the rights of conscience, freedom of the press, and trial by jury in criminal cases. The House passed Madison's proposed amendment. But the Senate rejected it because all the states already had their own bills of rights.

In 1833, the Supreme Court addressed the issue and determined the amendments of the Bill of Rights, applied only to the national government and not to the states. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243 (1833). You can read the case for yourself at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html. It is pretty short and easy to read.


2. After the passage of the 14th Amendment, provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states through the doctrine of "incorporation." Members of the Supreme Court have disagreed in the past as to the degree and by what standard provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states are part of the Due Process Clause. It has been accepted since at least 1947 that some, if not all, of the BoR applies to the states through the DPC. The debate over how much of the BoR applies has been accepted since 1968.

3. Almost everyone is shocked by #1 when the first learn of it, as it is contrary to common wisdom about the Constitution. The reaction to #2 often depends on the particular issue at hand and the political view of the individual on that issue. I always find it amusing when those who are shocked by #1 suddenly become outraged at the application of the BoR to the states in #2 -- because the particular BoR provision (such as the Establishment Clause) is inconvenient to their view. (I am not saying anyone here has done or will do that.)

Here are sources explaining the history, including an article from the NRA (in case you think my position is just liberal spin):
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0047310-00&templatename=/article/article.html
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23
http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporation-bill-of-rights

BTW, I want to add my voice to those wishing kudos to Whispering Legs. I have strongly disagreed with you, but respected your arguments on another issue. I respect you even more for your willingness to review the facts (law, source material, etc) and change your mind. I can only hope that I can display the same intellectual integrity.

I think if you read further in the thread, you'll see where I conceded this.

Kay...oops...sorry...quick trigger finger.

I think it is in some states, but I could be wrong.

It was, but the 'bedroom laws' were challenged under right to privacy concerns recently and were deamed unconstitutional along with sodomy laws.

I'm curious as to when you think these "good old days" occurred. (Particularly as you seem to praise Scalia, who tends to write his own concurrence or dissent more than others -- despite having a majority of Republicans and conservatives on the Court.)

Acutally if you read everything I said, I noted that I only agree with some of what Scalia's points. And as I didn't mention Scalia in the post you quoted, it is probably safe to assume I disagree with his grandstanding with seperate opinions.

The better old days were before 1937.

The Constitution actually says nothing about separation of Church and State. It provides us with protection to worship as we choose. God has been a vital part of our country from day one. It was, in fact, one of the two major issues that brought about the birth of our nation.

Could you please recount that? Looking at the Declaration of Independence (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html) I see 27 reasons, not 2, for the founding of our nation, and not one of them has anything to do with religion or atheism.

Giving in to atheism, which IS by definition a religion according to Webster, or other forces that would undermine the principles the United States was founded on, is paramount to saying the Constitution is irrelevant in today's society. The liberals keep chipping away at it but, guess what? She's a strong old lady, just as freedom is, and will withstand the sometimes misguided, mostly deliberate efforts to defeat it.
God bless America! :)

Separation of Church and State is not an attempt at an Atheist Government, it is an attempt at an Agnostic one. An Atheist Government would only accept the total removal of religion period (no churches, no prayer, no god period). An agnostic government, leaves the discussion, debate, and conclusion up to the individual. This is what SoCaS is asking for. Leave the decision in the hands of individuals. This is what you as a devout Christian (if you have any sense whatsoever) should want! One cannot force others to accept their saviour, in any way, and have it be valid. To do so would be tantamount to spitting on the body of Christ.

G-d does not need to be plastered all over the walls to have sway in a nation. You thinking that He does is quite insulting.

Acutally if you read everything I said, I noted that I only agree with some of what Scalia's points. And as I didn't mention Scalia in the post you quoted, it is probably safe to assume I disagree with his grandstanding with seperate opinions.

Glad to hear it. I apologize for making assumptions.

The better old days were before 1937.

So the Court's been rogue for at least 68 years? Almost a third of its existence?