NationStates Jolt Archive

The US Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed on public property.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7053335/
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4310273.stm

On one hand, it may show a bias against the areligious.

On the other hand, it's hard to argue that "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal", etc, are purely religious ideals.

On one hand, separation of church and state.

On the other hand, that not only does not mean freedom from others with religion.

What do you think?

The 10 Commandments are basic laws of mankind. It's not just a religious thing, it's humanitarian. But we should always go for a democratic approach and hold a vote.

It depends. If they insist on displaying ONLY the ten Commandments, then that is seemingly an endorsement of one religion and should not be allowed. But if they display the ten Commandments alongside other historical documents of law, such as Hammurabi's code and the Magna Carta, then that should be seen as displaying them for their influence on modern law, and should be perfectly permissible.

The 10 Commandments are basic laws of mankind. It's not just a religious thing, it's humanitarian.
Not really. Some people have more than one god, most people don't keep holy the sabbath, everyone covets wives and goods, many people have graven images to pray to.

I thought "Thou shalt keep up with the Joneses" had replaced "Thou shalt not covet."

And since when is the Sabbath a universal human value?

It depends. If they insist on displaying ONLY the ten Commandments, then that is seemingly an endorsement of one religion and should not be allowed. But if they display the ten Commandments alongside other historical documents of law, such as Hammurabi's code and the Magna Carta, then that should be seen as displaying them for their influence on modern law, and should be perfectly permissible.

Which religion would that be?

The 10 Commandments are held as a part of the Jewish, Catholic, and the Protestant religions, including Jehovah's Witnesses.

The Muslims have similar interpretation:
The Quran has verses that in many ways are similar to the Ten Commandments:

"Say, come, I will recite what God has made a sacred duty for you: Ascribe nothing as equal with God;
Be good to your parents;
You shall not kill your children on a plea of want; we provide sustenance for you and for them;
You shall not approach lewd behavior whether open or in secret,
You shall not take life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does God command you, that you may learn wisdom.
And you shall not approach the property of the orphan, except to improve it, until he attains the age of maturity.
Give full measure and weight, in justice; no burden should be placed on any soul but that which it can bear.
And if you give your word, do it justice, even if a near relative is concerned; and fulfill your obligations before God. Thus does God command you, that you may remember.
Verily, this is my straight path: follow it, and do not follow other paths which will separate you from God's path. Thus does God command you, that you may be righteous."
(Koran, 6:151-153)

Other religions also have similar views:
http://www.unification.org/ucbooks/WorldScr/WS-02-03.htm

I agree that other displays should be displayed as well, of course.

I thought "Thou shalt keep up with the Joneses" had replaced "Thou shalt not covet."

And since when is the Sabbath a universal human value?

The overlying theme of the ten Commandments do have a great deal of influence in western law. Just because each individual commandment does not apply to society today doesn't mean that the document as a whole isn't still influential.

I thought "Thou shalt keep up with the Joneses" had replaced "Thou shalt not covet."

And since when is the Sabbath a universal human value?

Since American Football became a religion? :D

Which religion would that be?

The 10 Commandments are held as a part of the Jewish, Catholic, and the Protestant religions, including Jehovah's Witnesses.

The Muslims have similar interpretation:
The Quran has verses that in many ways are similar to the Ten Commandments:

"Say, come, I will recite what God has made a sacred duty for you: Ascribe nothing as equal with God;
Be good to your parents;
You shall not kill your children on a plea of want; we provide sustenance for you and for them;
You shall not approach lewd behavior whether open or in secret,
You shall not take life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does God command you, that you may learn wisdom.
And you shall not approach the property of the orphan, except to improve it, until he attains the age of maturity.
Give full measure and weight, in justice; no burden should be placed on any soul but that which it can bear.
And if you give your word, do it justice, even if a near relative is concerned; and fulfill your obligations before God. Thus does God command you, that you may remember.
Verily, this is my straight path: follow it, and do not follow other paths which will separate you from God's path. Thus does God command you, that you may be righteous."
(Koran, 6:151-153)

Other religions also have similar views:
http://www.unification.org/ucbooks/WorldScr/WS-02-03.htm

I agree that other displays should be displayed as well, of course.

Don't act ignorant; it's unbecoming. You know very well that Christianity is the religion I was speaking of.

The overlying theme of the ten Commandments do have a great deal of influence in western law. Just because each individual commandment does not apply to society today doesn't mean that the document as a whole isn't still influential.

Oh, yeah? Well I know for a fact that the only reason God is on the money is because when we went off the gold standard, it was cheaper to Wite-out(rtm) the "L" than print new money.

Oh, yeah? Well I know for a fact that the only reason God is on the money is because when we went off the gold standard, it was cheaper to Wite-out(rtm) the "L" than print new money.

You mean Weird-Greenish-Out.

Don't act ignorant; it's unbecoming. You know very well that Christianity is the religion I was speaking of.

My, we're feeling a shade beligerent today, aren't we? :(

Oh, yeah? Well I know for a fact that the only reason God is on the money is because when we went off the gold standard, it was cheaper to Wite-out(rtm) the "L" than print new money.

In response to several Acts of Congress, the motto IN GOD WE TRUST has been on our coins continuously since the time of the Civil War (1865). Another Act of Congress in 1956 made this our national motto.

The US didn't even *start* to go off the Gold Standard until 1933, and didn't sever the last ties until 1972!

The overlying theme of the ten Commandments do have a great deal of influence in western law. Just because each individual commandment does not apply to society today doesn't mean that the document as a whole isn't still influential.
The document is nothing but a list of laws. If most of the commandments don't apply, the document's influence must be very low indeed. Perhaps even non-existant.

The ten commandments aren't basic human laws.

This pretty much sums it up well.

LANGUAGE WARNING
http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html

The document is nothing but a list of laws. If most of the commandments don't apply, the document's influence must be very low indeed. Perhaps even non-existant.

Well only four out of the ten directly relate to religion. So it's 60% influential?

I fail to see any purpose they have. Less than half of the 10 commandments are actual law today and the ones that are there have existed for millenia and cultures with absolutely no Judeo-Christian influence have had laws against stealing, killing...

Our laws have no basis with the 10 commandments. Our laws are based off of 6th century Anglo-Saxon common law(which is around a century before any Christian influence had penetrated the anglos).

So the laws hold no historical significance to the laws of this country and a majority of them don't even apply as law to this country.

So please explain to me why they have a purpose other than glorifying one religion, which I believe is against the constitution.

If you're going to put the 10 commandments up as a historical law code, put up other codes as well. If Christians really have a secular purpose for the 10 commandments being there, they won't have a problem with the rules of Islam and Hammurabi's Code up there.

Well only four out of the ten directly relate to religion. So it's 60% influential?
Any commandment about coveting is both unenforceable, because it involves policing what people think, and violates free speech if you punish them for voicing their covetousness. Actually, at least 6 of the ten couldn't pass constitutional muster.

I fail to see any purpose they have. Less than half of the 10 commandments are actual law today and the ones that are there have existed for millenia and cultures with absolutely no Judeo-Christian influence have had laws against stealing, killing...

Our laws have no basis with the 10 commandments. Our laws are based off of 6th century Anglo-Saxon common law(which is around a century before any Christian influence had penetrated the anglos).

So the laws hold no historical significance to the laws of this country and a majority of them don't even apply as law to this country.

So please explain to me why they have a purpose other than glorifying one religion, which I believe is against the constitution.

If you're going to put the 10 commandments up as a historical law code, put up other codes as well. If Christians really have a secular purpose for the 10 commandments being there, they won't have a problem with the rules of Islam and Hammurabi's Code up there.

Can you provide the name of this 6th Century "Common Law Codex"?

BTW: It is an almost certainty that Christianity would have influnced any document from the 500s, as Christians would have been in England before then.

* England was conquered by the Emperor Claudius in 43 AD.
* Constantine converted the Roman Empire in 313 AD.
* Rome abandons Londinium/England in 407 AD.
That's almost 100 years...

On one hand, it may show a bias against the a religious.


It is not a bias against Christians. If all Religions are allowed to display content on public property, then there is no problem. When you only allow one Religion, then there is a problem.


On the other hand, that not only does not mean freedom from others with religion.


In a way it does. The goverment is supposed to be Religious neutral.


In other arguments pro 10 commandent display types have argued the fact they are in the Supreme Court.

As mentioned in today's Washington Post:

"The Supreme Court frieze, for instance, depicts Moses and the tablets as well as 17 other figures including Hammurabi, Confucius, Napoleon and Chief Justice John Marshall. Because it includes secular figures in a way that doesn't endorse religion, the display would be constitutional, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested in a 1989 ruling."

Religous neutrality is maintained thus it is ok.

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

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)

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

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)

The question is more about being neutral with religion.

If you post the 10 commandments and nothing else, you are endorsing Christianity.

You allow say for a giant minora(sp?) on public property and nobody else, you are endorsing Judism.

Both are violate the establishment clause.

If you post the 10 commandments and nothing else, you are endorsing Christianity.

Wrong. That's just how you're reading in to it. If they put the 10 commandments on display outside a court house then they've done nothing more then put the 10 commandments on display outside a court house. It'd be no different then if they put a framed picture of George W. Bush, the statue of David, a copy of the New York Times, or a paper clip stuck in an eraser outside the court house. Now let's say that the judge in said court made decisions that were based on or in part on the 10 commandments and not solely on the Constitution. You'd then have a problem with the judge endorsing religion, but you still wouldn't have a problem with the 10 commandments being on display. If you removed the display and kept the judge, you'd still have a judge making rulings based on the 10 commandments because we cannot reasonably conclude that the display was the sole influence on his decision to rule based on the 10 commandments as opposed to the Constitution. If we removed the judge and replaced him with a responsible one and kept the 10 commandments, we could have a judge that based his rulings solely on the Constitution. So, you see, a display of the 10 commandments has no affect on anything or anyone, save people being offended because of an infringement of some perceived government requirement that doesn't even really exist.

Edit: It wasn't really a right, just a 'perceived government requirement'.

Wrong. That's just how you're reading in to it. If they put the 10 commandments on display outside a court house then they've done nothing more then put the 10 commandments on display outside a court house. It'd be no different then if they put a framed picture of George W. Bush, the statue of David, a copy of the New York Times, or a paper clip stuck in an eraser outside the court house. Now let's say that the judge in said court made decisions that were based on or in part on the 10 commandments and not solely on the Constitution. You'd then have a problem with the judge endorsing religion, but you still wouldn't have a problem with the 10 commandments being on display. If you removed the display and kept the judge, you'd still have a judge making rulings based on the 10 commandments because we cannot reasonably conclude that the display was the sole influence on his decision to rule based on the 10 commandments as opposed to the Constitution. If we removed the judge and replaced him with a responsible one and kept the 10 commandments, we could have a judge that based his rulings solely on the Constitution. So, you see, a display of the 10 commandments has no affect on anything or anyone, save people being offended because of an infringement of some perceived government requirement that doesn't even really exist.

Edit: It wasn't really a right, just a 'perceived government requirement'.
You're wrong. They have the effect of endorsing certain religious viewpoints over others. Do you really think that an atheist, or a Hindu, or another person with a minority viewpoint will feel he can get a fair trial in a courtroom that displays symbols of the majority religion? It makes them feel like they're second class citizens.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6556099&postcount=35

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8339345&postcount=67

Nope Sorry you are wrong.

Wrong. That's just how you're reading in to it. If they put the 10 commandments on display outside a court house then they've done nothing more then put the 10 commandments on display outside a court house. It'd be no different then if they put a framed picture of George W. Bush, the statue of David, a copy of the New York Times, or a paper clip stuck in an eraser outside the court house.


Sorry but your examples are not Religius icons. No bearing in the argument.

*SNIP*

Sorry but the fact remains. A judge that is forced to remove the 10 commandments or is fired for not doing so sends a message that you are to evaluate the law and not interpose your morality system over the written law.

Can you provide the name of this 6th Century "Common Law Codex"?

The law itself was called Common Law in the 7th ammendment.

My point is that Anglo-Saxons were essentially barbarians. Anglo-Saxons were essentially pagans and knew nothing of Christianity other than maybe a story. If you want a link, here you go:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

It's close to the bottom, under the headline "Common Law." Read it and see the truth.

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

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)

So technically they can neither allow or dissallow the displaying of this thing as they can't make any laws concerning religion...

The US constatution was basedon the ten commandments. Thats why people have off on saturday and sunday. The sabbaths for Jews and Christians. Its also why our money says God, not gods.

The US constatution was basedon the ten commandments. Thats why people have off on saturday and sunday. The sabbaths for Jews and Christians. Its also why our money says God, not gods.

Wooooaaaa The work laws are in the Consitution?????????

And yet Madison himself spoke of the seperation of the church from the state.

As to money. God wasn't always included.

I am surprised you aren't worried about the other "evil" symbols on the money. ;)

"No, it's wrong and has no place. Take God off money, too!"

The notion of "God" is idiocy and no sensible person should believe in "him".

Oh wait, this is the U.S. we're talking about.

Nevermind.

The law itself was called Common Law in the 7th ammendment.

My point is that Anglo-Saxons were essentially barbarians. Anglo-Saxons were essentially pagans and knew nothing of Christianity other than maybe a story. If you want a link, here you go:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

It's close to the bottom, under the headline "Common Law." Read it and see the truth.

Wow, are you that stupid?

Shortly after the Anglo-Saxons invaded, they mostly converted, mainly because of the Norman rule. Why do you think Christianty (in one form or another) has almost always been the official religion of England? I just completed 23 pages of notes on the subject, don't say that the English at the time of Common Law wern't Christian.

the ten commandments, as a package are part of the christian religion, and therefore have no place in the state, same as bits of other religious texts being quoted, there's no place for it. doesn't mean that the laws against stealing and murder shouldn't be upheld. but the supreme court should avoid religious propaganda and stick to it's laws and constitution.

it should be romoved. while it isnt setting up a state religion, or a religious state, i it is still showing bias to one form of religion, thus violating the amendment on freedom of religion. if you go the other way, and have all religious emblems on a building, christians will still ask for theirs to be more promanant due to majority representations, some religions will oppose due to their beliefs that certain things should not be displayed, plus it would cause an unsightly mess and clutter on the building

The USA is a Christian country.

It's interesting how sensitive people become once religion is thrown into the mix... If it were anything nonreligious being displayed nobody would have a problem with it but somehow once religion gets involved it's such a huge problem... (damn those founders and their "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause...) In all honesty I don't see the problem with displaying the 10 Commandments or any other religious symbol on public lands, as long as you don't have people near those symbols preaching their religions and demanding you convert what's the point? If you think about it, how many things do you walk by everyday and they have no effect on what you think? So long as the government doesn't demand you worship something there's no problem, in the end it's impossible to appease everyone after all, even if all religion were stripped from public areas there would be a huge movement by religious people to change that again and they'd come up with some other argument from the Constitution that argues their points. It's just an endless struggle between opposing groups and nobody's ever going to win so I don't see the point in bothering with this issue. After all, how many symbols do you walk by each day? How many Churches do you see? Temples? Mosques? They're all littered with religious symbols, but do they make you suddenly want to be Christian? Jewish? Muslim? I don't think so... If you look at this from a historical perspective then it's perfectly alright to display anything on public property. All these documents or symbols are rich in secular history. They have influenced the world in billions of ways throughout history and they have a certain secular aspect to them because of this. I think the reason everyone complains is because they think the government only puts Christian symbols up and no others but... has anybody asked to display a symbol from another religion? I'm sure that if you look into it very few, if any people, have. So the only problem would arise if these people were not allowed to display that symbol as well. If denied then remove the 10 Commandments. But displayed together all these things have a profound secular influence on history. Everyone just seems to forget that as much as we sometimes despise it, religion has shaped much of what we enjoy today. So there ya go, so long as you don't disallow other symbols from being displayed, preach that religion while on that property, or display them for a distinctly religious purpose, it's a ok to put the 10 Commandments on public property by my standards.

It's all or none in my opinion but I would rather it be none. Are there any symbols from other religions on any of our public buildings? I am curious.

atheism is a religion, the government has no right to promote it on it's premises.

There is no reason that the Ten Commandments should be on display outside a civic building, or a passage from the Quran, or the Torah, or the Wiccan Rede, or anything else religious. The court system is about justice and the law, and to put up monuments of religious bent is to confuse things and muddy the waters. Why not just put up a statue of Justice, like is traditionally done (though in the South you'll probably have to put some extra clothing on her, so as not to offend their Christian sensibilities...)

atheism is a religion, the government has no right to promote it on it's premises.


whre are those atheistic symbols? whatever those might be.

where do the courts promote atheism?

The thing a lot of people don't get is that the Establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) simply means there is going to be no Church of America, chruch and the government will be sperate (unlike the system in England with the Anglican church). Most of the founding fathers were very religious and often made lots of direct references to God . Back then it was more of a way to protect churches from the government. Simply displaying the commandments is not an endorsment of religion, just a way of historically signifying our heritage.

The thing a lot of people don't get is that the Establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) simply means there is going to be no Church of America, chruch and the government will be sperate (unlike the system in England with the Anglican church). Most of the founding fathers were very religious and often made lots of direct references to God . Back then it was more of a way to protect churches from the government. Simply displaying the commandments is not an endorsment of religion, just a way of historically signifying our heritage.
What heritage is that? The killing of the non-believers one?

What heritage is that? The killing of the non-believers one?

(I know I'm stealing this from Bill O'Reilly)

Enjoy the Kool-Aid, sir/madam/whatever

(I know I'm stealing this from Bill O'Reilly)

Enjoy the Kool-Aid, sir/madam/whatever
Haha. Okay, do tell, how are we celebrating our culture by placing a ten commandments monument in our courts. (Remember that placing a momunment depicting, say, JESUS being hung from a cross is illegal)

Haha. Okay, do tell, how are we celebrating our culture by placing a ten commandments monument in our courts. (Remember that placing a momunment depicting, say, JESUS being hung from a cross is illegal)

Not illegal in that someone could be charged for a crime for it, yet. PLus you failed to make the distinction that you can display almost anything you want on private property.

One could make the secular argument that because the effort to keep the laws of Moses has had a positive effect on American history that yes they are celebrating their heritage. With a few notable exceptions, U.S. history seems to have been positively influenced by the strong beliefs of it's founders.

But being a "Christian Fundie" as some people here like to call me I'll just settle for being disgusted with people who have nothing better to do then whine about the presence of a rock with some words on it in the halls of justice.

what is so offensive about looking upon any religous item even if it is on public land. you cant escape religion any where you look i live in a small county in iowa and here alone their are over 50 churches. you see the cross going to the grocery store. a jewish star on the way to work. i realize it in a public place but in reality isnt almost all churches a public place, like the grocery store. anyoen can vist a church other than their own religion. i feel that this ranks right up with the whole issue abotu having the nativity scene in your yard, its people with too much time on their hands who like to be in the papers. why would anyone care what how their neihbor decorates during christmas it wont devalue your property and unless they leave their lights on all night directly in you window and leave them up all year round it will all be over in a month. we have more stress just driving to rent a video. anyway im ranting and im sorry but if you are religous thats fine just dont try to force your values on others by telling them what the can display and what they cant. i do not go to church except for weddings but i do not find anything any one else beleives to be offensive its theri choice god given or otherwise .


sorry for the typing errors i am a horrible typer

(I know I'm stealing this from Bill O'Reilly)

Enjoy the Kool-Aid, sir/madam/whatever
And to borrow from Maddox, Bill O'Reilly is a big, blubbering vagina.

Not illegal in that someone could be charged for a crime for it, yet. PLus you failed to make the distinction that you can display almost anything you want on private property.

One could make the secular argument that because the effort to keep the laws of Moses has had a positive effect on American history that yes they are celebrating their heritage. With a few notable exceptions, U.S. history seems to have been positively influenced by the strong beliefs of it's founders.

But being a "Christian Fundie" as some people here like to call me I'll just settle for being disgusted with people who have nothing better to do then whine about the presence of a rock with some words on it in the halls of justice.
You've yet to tell me why. Strong beliefs? It's been argued to death that most of the founders were either diests or non-commitial christians, and please, make that argueent that saying that the laws of moses had a positive effect on American History. Show me how the ten commandments, vauge and mostly relating to religion, are more important then, say, the Codex Justinian?

what is so offensive about looking upon any religous item even if it is on public land. you cant escape religion any where you look i live in a small county in iowa and here alone their are over 50 churches. you see the cross going to the grocery store. a jewish star on the way to work. i realize it in a public place but in reality isnt almost all churches a public place, like the grocery store. anyoen can vist a church other than their own religion. i feel that this ranks right up with the whole issue abotu having the nativity scene in your yard, its people with too much time on their hands who like to be in the papers. why would anyone care what how their neihbor decorates during christmas it wont devalue your property and unless they leave their lights on all night directly in you window and leave them up all year round it will all be over in a month. we have more stress just driving to rent a video. anyway im ranting and im sorry but if you are religous thats fine just dont try to force your values on others by telling them what the can display and what they cant. i do not go to church except for weddings but i do not find anything any one else beleives to be offensive its theri choice god given or otherwise .


sorry for the typing errors i am a horrible typer

Public land = Federal land =/= churches or homes.

The thing a lot of people don't get is that the Establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) simply means there is going to be no Church of America, chruch and the government will be sperate (unlike the system in England with the Anglican church). Most of the founding fathers were very religious and often made lots of direct references to God . Back then it was more of a way to protect churches from the government. Simply displaying the commandments is not an endorsment of religion, just a way of historically signifying our heritage.

It was also to keep the Churches out of the Goverment. Remember these men still remembered the Religious wars of Europe.

When you display the commandments but tell other groups they can't display anything, it's an endorsement. Remember 'Bama Moores comments.....

what is so offensive about looking upon any religous item even if it is on public land. you cant escape religion any where you look i live in a small county in iowa and here alone their are over 50 churches. you see the cross going to the grocery store. a jewish star on the way to work.

*SNIP*

Stores, Churches, homes are private. There is no problems with you hanging anything there.

Public land are parks, goverment buildings, etc. If you allow anybody to set up something, then there is no problems. If you say only the 10 commandments/whatnot are allowed, it's an endorsement of a Religion.

The estableshment clause is meant to keep the goverment Religious neutral.

One could make the secular argument that because the effort to keep the laws of Moses has had a positive effect on American history that yes they are celebrating their heritage. With a few notable exceptions, U.S. history seems to have been positively influenced by the strong beliefs of it's founders.


There is nothing wrong with posting them in a secular setting. The Supreme Court of the United States has Moses and the Tablets, they also have Hamurabi, Napoleon, and Chief Justice *just blanked the name*, for a total of 17 other figures. When you say only the 10 commandments are allowed then you endorse a Religion.


But being a "Christian Fundie" as some people here like to call me I'll just settle for being disgusted with people who have nothing better to do then whine about the presence of a rock with some words on it in the halls of justice.

Well if you try to cram your beliefs on everybody else, change history to prove your arguements, then yes you are a fundie.

The Founding Fathers were NOT all hard core Christians. Many were Deists.....

Leave it on. It is the earliest law code that resembles modern thought, and thus important to display. There is a reason why the Code of Hammurabi is also not on display: even though it predates the Ten Commandments, it is closer to the laws of a toltalitarian state, and not of a liberal democracy.

Leave it on. It is the earliest law code that resembles modern thought, and thus important to display. There is a reason why the Code of Hammurabi is also not on display: even though it predates the Ten Commandments, it is closer to the laws of a toltalitarian state, and not of a liberal democracy.
Pardon? The bible? Modern thought? Stone the non-believers, women are property, killing is a'okay as long as they worship a different deity then you?

The USA is a Christian country.
ignorance is bliss, isnt it. seriously, like australia, and many other countries around the world these days, the USA is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural country. it is the assumption (i.e. mother of all f'ups) that the US is a christian nation. is the major religion christian? yes. is it the state religion? well, as stated in the constitution, no. although i have one question: can muslims swear on the koran, or jews on the old testiment (i am unsure of their title for it)?

There is a reason why the Code of Hammurabi is also not on display: even though it predates the Ten Commandments, it is closer to the laws of a toltalitarian state, and not of a liberal democracy.

Hmmmmm. You have me interested. Do defend the claim......

Pardon? The bible? Modern thought? Stone the non-believers, women are property, killing is a'okay as long as they worship a different diety then you?
Certain sections of the Bible were rejected, but not all of it. Besides, this arguement is specific to the Ten Commandments. Certain concepts evolved out of that before any other legal system, such as parental authority, and prohibiting murder and stealing. Parental authority, while nearly universal, has never been codified in the West until this point. The ban on murder and theft is not found in some other cultures, and was not found in any of the other proto-Western civilizations of the time.
Of course, you may wonder why excerpts from the Analects and Buddha's middle way are not found alongside the Ten Commandments. They are not considered a basis of modern law in the West, as they are Eastern philosophies that developed indepedently of Western legal systems. However, should a courtroom or statehouse display them, I will be equally glad to defend their display, regardless of attacks by those trying to rip the fabric of civil rights.

Certain sections of the Bible were rejected, but not all of it. Besides, this arguement is specific to the Ten Commandments. Certain concepts evolved out of that before any other legal system, such as parental authority, and prohibiting murder and stealing. Parental authority, while nearly universal, has never been codified in the West until this point. The ban on murder and theft is not found in some other cultures, and was not found in any of the other proto-Western civilizations of the time.
Of course, you may wonder why excerpts from the Analects and Buddha's middle way are not found alongside the Ten Commandments. They are not considered a basis of modern law in the West, as they are Eastern philosophies that developed indepedently of Western legal systems. However, should a courtroom or statehouse display them, I will be equally glad to defend their display, regardless of attacks by those trying to rip the fabric of civil rights.
Are you stating that murder was not illegal until the Ten Commandments came about?

You do realize that quite a bit of the Ten Commandments is stolen from the Code of Hammurabi, right? Not stealing and not killing is rather harshly written into that docuement...as is quite a bit of paternal rule and harsh penalties against bearing false witness.

Hmmmmm. You have me interested. Do defend the claim......
Well, I defended the side of the Ten Commandments. Now there were two major codes that predated this: the Hittite Code, and the Code of Hammurabi. The Hittite Code, while a good attempt, proved insufficient. It emphasized compensation, and not punishment, allowing the violator the freedom to act again. Hardly the way modern legal systems evolved.
The Code of Hammurabi had the opposite problem. It was effective on the punishment side, but the laws do not fit the need of Western thought. Basically, it said that the gods reigned supreme, and that anything, even that which was done to oneself, was to be punished. Some basic theft issues were addressed, but not many.
The Ten Commandments did a few things. It was purposefully vague enough for judges to intrepret in their own fashion, yet it was straightforward. This may seem contradictary, but no one can deny that the Ten Commandments posess this quality. The final seven commandments can be easily applied to most religions and many legal systems.

Certain sections of the Bible were rejected, but not all of it. Besides, this arguement is specific to the Ten Commandments. Certain concepts evolved out of that before any other legal system, such as parental authority, and prohibiting murder and stealing. Parental authority, while nearly universal, has never been codified in the West until this point. The ban on murder and theft is not found in some other cultures, and was not found in any of the other proto-Western civilizations of the time.
Of course, you may wonder why excerpts from the Analects and Buddha's middle way are not found alongside the Ten Commandments. They are not considered a basis of modern law in the West, as they are Eastern philosophies that developed indepedently of Western legal systems. However, should a courtroom or statehouse display them, I will be equally glad to defend their display, regardless of attacks by those trying to rip the fabric of civil rights.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6556099&postcount=35

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8339345&postcount=67

Are you stating that murder was not illegal until the Ten Commandments came about?

You do realize that quite a bit of the Ten Commandments is stolen from the Code of Hammurabi, right? Not stealing and not killing is rather harshly written into that docuement...as is quite a bit of paternal rule and harsh penalties against bearing false witness.
But it allowed for several inconsistencies. The Code seems to have different legal standards for different people. Murder was okay for state officials, and of parents murdering children. The Ten Commandments has a more modern principle, that all men are subject under the law. This was first practiced in England wiith the Magna Carta, and the writters of that document certainly had these Ten Commandments in mind.

What if they were these 10 Commandments? Would it still be okay?

1. Thou shalt have no god.
2. Thou shalt make many, many, graven images. Like obscene pornography.
3. Thou shalt swear like a sailor, and thou shalt recieve bonus points for using "god" ironically.
4. Remember the weekend is for thine pleasure, and thou shalt not waste time praying.
5. Remember that thine mother and father are human, and thou hast the right to disagree with them.
6. Thou shalt not kill. Unless, thou knowest, they have it coming to them.
7. Thou shalt engage in whatever sexual acts thou wishes.
8. Thou shalt not deprive other people of property, unless thou hast the moral high ground.
9. Thou shalt make sure thine neighbors remain in their places by whatever means thou deems neccessary.
10. Thou shalt wish for whatever thou desires. Just do not be surprised if thou does not get it.


Take all of this with a grain of salt. I'm being sarcastic to prove my point.

i really dont care it dosnt affect me one way or another. mabye they should just replace "god" with "deity of ur your choice"...

But it allowed for several inconsistencies. The Code seems to have different legal standards for different people. Murder was okay for state officials, and of parents murdering children. The Ten Commandments has a more modern principle, that all men are subject under the law. This was first practiced in England wiith the Magna Carta, and the writters of that document certainly had these Ten Commandments in mind.
And the Ten Commandments do not? Bear in mind, it comes from a book that says that it is okay to slaughter thousands of people so long as 'god' (debatable if God really came down and said, okay, you can kill them) says it's okay? If you're going to say that the Code of Hammurabi is inconsistant (and remember, it is the source of insperation most likely for the Ten Commandments), then you have to say the same for the Ten Commandments. Neither make a proper historical symbol, we'd be better off using something more modern like the Magna Carta or ...erh, slips my mind.

The law itself was called Common Law in the 7th ammendment.

Sorry, you can't use The Constitution to define something from the past that you are using to define The Constitution.

My point is that Anglo-Saxons were essentially barbarians.

That had been Roman for 364 years?!? That's 12-13 GENERATIONS of life under Rome! Londinum... Bath... Haediran's Wall for Goodness sake! Barbarians? Hardly. (The Scots at the time? *Maybe*.)

Anglo-Saxons were essentially pagans and knew nothing of Christianity other than maybe a story.

Absolutely absurd, as I posted above, Britain was a Roman province for 364 years, which included the period of Constantine and nearly 100 years (3-4 generations!) of Christianity.

If you want a link, here you go:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

It's close to the bottom, under the headline "Common Law." Read it and see the truth.

Surely, you jest. Not only is this an opinion site, no where on it does it ever post or claim any academic credentials.

All I have to say on the matter is that I'm glad it's not my decision.

Because it's a HARD one for me!

I am a very strong supporter of the bill of rights. The Bill or Rights(especially the first ten) was originally designed not to limit the people, but to limit the government. The First Amendment in regards to religion was designed so government could neither bar nor endorse a specific religion.

As such, where do we draw the line as to whether these displays on public property are an endorsement of a specific religion or if barring them is a barring of a specific religion?

As a libertarian, I have to believe that it's better to allow than to ban. I would probably decide that any religious symbols are constitutional on public property with the support of the local public in question.

here is an idea: remove all religious objects from public and federal buildings, and make politions, witnesses etc swear on a copy of the american constitution. that way, there is no biasness towards any one religion, and wont offend their followers. you are citizens of the United States after all.

Wow, are you that stupid?

Shortly after the Anglo-Saxons invaded, they mostly converted, mainly because of the Norman rule. Why do you think Christianty (in one form or another) has almost always been the official religion of England? I just completed 23 pages of notes on the subject, don't say that the English at the time of Common Law wern't Christian.


And I'm taking a class on the history and culture of London. Christianity essentially left with the Romans and didn't return until 598. I got my dates wrong by the way, sorry about that, it was 5th century England, not 6th.

Did you read the quote on the website I gave you???

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

here is an idea: remove all religious objects from public and federal buildings, and make politions, witnesses etc swear on a copy of the american constitution. that way, there is no biasness towards any one religion, and wont offend their followers. you are citizens of the United States after all.

John Leland actually said it nicely:

Be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick dispatch, characterize the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined.

Here are my thoughts, somewhat addled by the late-hour and heavily influenced by reading of some the arguments made in yesterdays argument before the US Supreme Court.

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


1. The Establishment Clause forbids not only state practices that aid one religion or prefer one religion over another, but also those practices that aid all religions and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion.

2. The Establishment Clause prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or making adherance to a religion relevant in any way to a person's participation or standing in the political community.

3. The Ten Commandments play an important part in the spiritual lives of many Americans and it is precisely for this reason that the government should not be in the business of endorsing or promoting religious beliefs.

4. People should not be made to feel like second-class citizens in their own community because they may not share the prevailing religious view -- especially in a courthouse.

5. Attempts by governmental agencies, at any level, to endorse religious beliefs are an affront to those who do not necessarily share those particular beliefs and are an impermissible meddling in the religion of those who do share those beliefs.

6. In order to protect religious freedom, the government must leave the promotion of religion to the church and neither aid nor hinder legitimate church activity.

7. The display of the Ten Commandments (particularly as a large statue) in a federal or county courthose violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because it has the impermissible purpose and effect of
endorsing religion.

8. Whether or not one can hypothesize a secular reason for their display, the Ten Commandments are inherently religious.

9. It is impossible to have a religiously neutral version of the Ten Commandments.

A. Ten Commandments are not universally accepted. The Ten Commandments express religious messages central to Jews and Christians. They are less significant in Islam and have no role in Eastern religions. By explicitly asserting the existence of a God, the display endorses theistic sects over non-theistic sects (such as Buddhism). By using the singular “I am the Lord thy God,” the displays exclude polytheistic sects, such as Hinduism.

B. Different textual versions reflect deep historical and religious disputes among Christian religions and between Christians and Jews. There are at least 5 distinct versions of the Ten Commandments. In the case just argued before the Supreme Court, the county governments involved showed denominational favoritism by posting the text of the Protestant "King James" version of the Ten Commandments. Displaying one version necessarily favors one religion over others.

C. And, because the Ten Commandments express religious beliefs that are
central only to Jews and Christians, displaying the Ten Commandments necessarily disfavors those with other religious beliefs or none at all.

10. Even if this was the real reason why the Ten Commandments were displayed, the parallels between three Commandments and secular law proof of causation, for those bans on killing, stealing and perjury are universal and existed in English law since before the English were Christianized.

11. When Ten Commandments are prominently displayed in or around a public courthouse -- on public land, paid for by public taxes -- , a reasonable
observer would view the display as symbolically endorsing religion. This is impermissible under the Establishment Clause (and contrary to a free society).

Ten Commandments, you don't belong anywhere, my "friend". And archaic set of rules with the sole purpose of controlling and manipulating people beyond their will.

I'm huge for civil rights, but since this is the U.S.A., it needs to be taken out of public buildings and government.

1. The Establishment Clause forbids not only state practices that aid one religion or prefer one religion over another, but also those practices that aid all religions and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion.

It does not aid one religion, it aids at least three. (Jewish, Catholic & Protestant). More if you count the Protestant denominations seperately.


2. The Establishment Clause prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or making adherance to a religion relevant in any way to a person's participation or standing in the political community.


And having the Commandments at a courthouse does this how? The existance of them being there doesn't say that the Government is taking a position any more than "In God We Trust" does one currency, or having one swear "So Help Me God" on the stand.


3. The Ten Commandments play an important part in the spiritual lives of many Americans and it is precisely for this reason that the government should not be in the business of endorsing or promoting religious beliefs.


This is the Chewbacca Defense if ever I heard it: the people believe in something, so we can't have a representation of it, lest we promote the people (whom we represent)'s beliefs.
(You must acquit!!)


4. People should not be made to feel like second-class citizens in their own community because they may not share the prevailing religious view -- especially in a courthouse.

Er? Does the existance of Affirmative Action not make some second class by definition? Jim Crow Laws were absolutely meant to do so. A display of ancient laws at a courthouse? Next we should remove that side display of Magna Charta from the National Archives, as it promotes Feudalism, which is discriminatory towards the poor since they are not included in it.


5. Attempts by governmental agencies, at any level, to endorse religious beliefs are an affront to those who do not necessarily share those particular beliefs and are an impermissible meddling in the religion of those who do share those beliefs.

It's not an endorsement, now is it? It's a display. Same was as The Passion of the Christ was a MOVIE not a documentary. If someone can point to something else that 76% of Americans can agree on, let's put it up too.
Heck, if 23% can agree on it, let's put it up.


6. In order to protect religious freedom, the government must leave the promotion of religion to the church and neither aid nor hinder legitimate church activity.

Excellent. Except that there is no church activity here. No one is making a shrine, it's a display. And it is certainly not helping nor hindering church activity.


7. The display of the Ten Commandments (particularly as a large statue) in a federal or county courthose violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because it has the impermissible purpose and effect of
endorsing religion.

By this arguement, we need to tear this down immediately, in order not to offend non-denominational guests and servicemen:
http://www.it-c.dk/people/kom/MP/cemetary.php


8. Whether or not one can hypothesize a secular reason for their display, the Ten Commandments are inherently religious.

So is the Bible the President swears on. Only THREE of 43 did not do so:
Chester Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge.
Were 93.02% of all Presidents offending the areligious while being sworn into office? :rolleyes:


9. It is impossible to have a religiously neutral version of the Ten Commandments.

It already exists. Catholics, Jehovah's, Jews, Calvinists, Methodists, Congregationalists, etc. *all* agree on the Commandments. Some may word them slightly differently, some may include an extra three. But if that isn't neutrality, I don't know what is.
I'll sweeten the pot: It is impossible to have a religiously neutral decision on abortion. Yet the decision allowing abortion exists.

Likewise, I don't see anyone galloping to put a Constitutional Amendement of "Honour Thy Father and Thy Mother".


A. Ten Commandments are not universally accepted. The Ten Commandments express religious messages central to Jews and Christians. They are less significant in Islam and have no role in Eastern religions. By explicitly asserting the existence of a God, the display endorses theistic sects over non-theistic sects (such as Buddhism). By using the singular “I am the Lord thy God,” the displays exclude polytheistic sects, such as Hinduism.


Yet 80% of the US is Christian or Jewish. Seems to me that the celebration of the heritage of the majority is being downtrodden here.


B. Different textual versions reflect deep historical and religious disputes among Christian religions and between Christians and Jews. There are at least 5 distinct versions of the Ten Commandments. In the case just argued before the Supreme Court, the county governments involved showed denominational favoritism by posting the text of the Protestant "King James" version of the Ten Commandments. Displaying one version necessarily favors one religion over others.


Actually, no.
"Judaism, Catholicism and Protestantism all agree that the Bible lists the ten commandments in chapter 20 of the book of Exodus, that passage contains more than ten imperative statements."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments


C. And, because the Ten Commandments express religious beliefs that are
central only to Jews and Christians, displaying the Ten Commandments necessarily disfavors those with other religious beliefs or none at all.


Aha. The same way that the tree in Rockefeller Center in NYC does? How about the White House Christmas tree? Are those "keeping the man down"?
Please. I'm not offended when I see people not eating pork, or wearing ethnic clothing.
This is a perception arguement, and ambiguous at best. Not all (say, Shintoists) will be offended. Perhaps none will. :)

It's a *display* not an *alter*.

Likewise, am I to discern that since the ONLY non-President to have a federal holiday is a black man (MLK), that the government is prejudiced for blacks? :rolleyes:


10. Even if this was the real reason why the Ten Commandments were displayed, the parallels between three Commandments and secular law proof of causation, for those bans on killing, stealing and perjury are universal and existed in English law since before the English were Christianized.

FALSE, as I posted in a preceding post and have been backed up on. By the 6th century, England had been Christianized for at least 3 generations.


11. When Ten Commandments are prominently displayed in or around a public courthouse -- on public land, paid for by public taxes -- , a reasonable
observer would view the display as symbolically endorsing religion. This is impermissible under the Establishment Clause (and contrary to a free society).

A reasonable observer could also conclude that because the courthouse has an analog clock on it, that the court was anti-technology for not going digital. Or anti-Amish, for having a clock at all.

The 10 Commandments are basic laws of mankind. It's not just a religious thing, it's humanitarian. But we should always go for a democratic approach and hold a vote.

The bit about one god and only one seems a bit religious to me.

atheism is a religion, the government has no right to promote it on it's premises.

Hey, dingleberry, the government doesn't post the Atheist Manifesto on courthouse doors.

i really dont care it dosnt affect me one way or another. mabye they should just replace "god" with "deity of ur your choice"...

My choice is no diety, so it still leaves out atheists. Perhaps "the arbiter of your conscience" might be better.

(And having the Commandments at a courthouse does this how? The existance of them being there doesn't say that the Government is taking a position any more than "In God We Trust" does one currency, or having one swear "So Help Me God" on the stand.)


@ Markreich
They do have alternate oaths, I've taken one while testfying in court.

(And having the Commandments at a courthouse does this how? The existance of them being there doesn't say that the Government is taking a position any more than "In God We Trust" does one currency, or having one swear "So Help Me God" on the stand.)


@ Markreich
They do have alternate oaths, I've taken one while testfying in court.

Yet the "so help me God" one is available.

My point is that the US is not a wholly secular nation.
(Nor, in my mind, should it be, given that 90% of the population believes in *some* kind of religion.)
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
(Click on "People", scroll a little. It's just before the gov't section.)

I should have put an "I'm not an American" option on the poll.

The US Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed on public property.

On one hand, it may show a bias against the areligious.

On the other hand, it's hard to argue that "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal", etc, are purely religious ideals.

Although the law is supposed to be entirely secular, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing for the supreme court to have the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill" there to be seen every day when some States still have a barbaric death penalty. Of course they'd probably choose to have the alternate "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder" instead.

Although the law is supposed to be entirely secular, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing for the supreme court to have the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill" there to be seen every day when some States still have a barbaric death penalty. Of course they'd probably choose to have the alternate "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder" instead.

I don't consider the death penalty barbaric.

If you club a nine year old girl over the head, rape her, dismember her and then rinse-lather-repeat the crime, you've waived your right to life by taking theirs.

I don't consider the death penalty barbaric.

If you club a nine year old girl over the head, rape her, dismember her and then rinse-lather-repeat the crime, you've waived your right to life by taking theirs.

And if someone else clubs a nine year old girl over the head, rapes her, dismembers her and then rinse-lather-repeats the crime and you find one of the bodies you've waived your right to life by being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the people's emotions are riding particularly high, and if people do later discover that you were innocent, well you should take heart in the knowledge that your sensless murder at the hands of a lynch-mob state made the parents feel a little better, and the public feel a little more self-satisfied.

And if someone else clubs a nine year old girl over the head, rapes her, dismembers her and then rinse-lather-repeats the crime and you find one of the bodies you've waived your right to life by being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the people's emotions are riding particularly high, and if people do later discover that you were innocent, well you should take heart in the knowledge that your sensless murder at the hands of a lynch-mob state made the parents feel a little better, and the public feel a little more self-satisfied.

Er, no. Merely finding a body does not incriminate someone.

Yet the "so help me God" one is available.

My point is that the US is not a wholly secular nation.
(Nor, in my mind, should it be, given that 90% of the population believes in *some* kind of religion.)
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
(Click on "People", scroll a little. It's just before the gov't section.)


I seem to remember a discussion in another thread about natural human rights. Rights that are not granted by the government nor subject to the will of the majority. The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, seeks to protect a few such rights.

James Madison and other Founders viewed the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause as protecting freedom of conscience.

And the Ten Commandments do not? Bear in mind, it comes from a book that says that it is okay to slaughter thousands of people so long as 'god' (debatable if God really came down and said, okay, you can kill them) says it's okay? If you're going to say that the Code of Hammurabi is inconsistant (and remember, it is the source of insperation most likely for the Ten Commandments), then you have to say the same for the Ten Commandments. Neither make a proper historical symbol, we'd be better off using something more modern like the Magna Carta or ...erh, slips my mind.
You're probably right in that respect. However, nearly all foundations of modern law stem from the Ten Commandments, and it is debatable if they even had an inspiration. Nevertheless, we should leave iit up to individual court houses to decide if their display is necessary. After all, the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the law, and I believe that that means an interpretatiion of where law came from. It is silly to dismiss the Ten Commandments based on religious grounds, for they do have legal merit.

Which religion would that be?

The 10 Commandments are held as a part of the Jewish, Catholic, and the Protestant religions, including Jehovah's Witnesses.

The Muslims have similar interpretation:
The Quran has verses that in many ways are similar to the Ten Commandments:

"Say, come, I will recite what God has made a sacred duty for you: Ascribe nothing as equal with God;
Be good to your parents;
You shall not kill your children on a plea of want; we provide sustenance for you and for them;
You shall not approach lewd behavior whether open or in secret,
You shall not take life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does God command you, that you may learn wisdom.
And you shall not approach the property of the orphan, except to improve it, until he attains the age of maturity.
Give full measure and weight, in justice; no burden should be placed on any soul but that which it can bear.
And if you give your word, do it justice, even if a near relative is concerned; and fulfill your obligations before God. Thus does God command you, that you may remember.
Verily, this is my straight path: follow it, and do not follow other paths which will separate you from God's path. Thus does God command you, that you may be righteous."
(Koran, 6:151-153)

Other religions also have similar views:
http://www.unification.org/ucbooks/WorldScr/WS-02-03.htm

I agree that other displays should be displayed as well, of course.

The point is more that in such a context, the commandments would not have a religious meaning, but a historical meaning for their influence on law.

You're probably right in that respect. However, nearly all foundations of modern law stem from the Ten Commandments, and it is debatable if they even had an inspiration. Nevertheless, we should leave iit up to individual court houses to decide if their display is necessary. After all, the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the law, and I believe that that means an interpretatiion of where law came from. It is silly to dismiss the Ten Commandments based on religious grounds, for they do have legal merit.
5 of the 10 don't and one of the remaining 5 isn't followed by any capitalist society.

First off, I am Catholic. I don't like any of the choices. I would prefer that no rules, guidelines, commandments, etc. of any religion be placed in public buildings. I wouldn't like to see some Satanistic rules above a judge when I walked in a courtroom. Just leave the seperation of Church and State like it is.

5 of the 10 don't and one of the remaining 5 isn't followed by any capitalist society.
Some of the specific commandments have no practical application. But it does affirm equality under the law, which was practiced by no previous legal code. It all has nothing to do with capitalism, as communism, and several absolute monarchies, followed the same principles, such as the "enlightened monarchies" in the 18th century.
Besides, you don't seem to be defending the fact that you don't have an agenda. From what I can infer, you do, based on your arguements, have an agenda that is strictly religious in nature.

Some of the specific commandments have no practical application. But it does affirm equality under the law, which was practiced by no previous legal code. It all has nothing to do with capitalism, as communism, and several absolute monarchies, followed the same principles, such as the "enlightened monarchies" in the 18th century.
Besides, you don't seem to be defending the fact that you don't have an agenda. From what I can infer, you do, based on your arguements, have an agenda that is strictly religious in nature.
It says nothing about equality under the law. Look at the books around it. Women are assumed not to count. They are less then human, they are property.

What religious agenda do I have?

It says nothing about equality under the law. Look at the books around it. Women are assumed not to count. They are less then human, they are property. [/quot]
That was a belief held long before and after the Jews. The concept started appearing only about 250 years ago, and even then, only slowly. However, it does provide equality for men. It leaves no clause for any man to escape it. Or a woman, for that matter. Observe that the Ten Commandments themselves were gender neutral, and actually appeared to give men more responsibility, not priviledge.
[quote]What religious agenda do I have?
Perhaps you are not Jewish or Christian, and thus predisposed to hate the Ten Commandments, regardless of merit. Or perhaps you have an extreme interpretation of the First Amendment.

It says nothing about equality under the law. Look at the books around it. Women are assumed not to count. They are less then human, they are property.
That was a belief held long before and after the Jews. The concept started appearing only about 250 years ago, and even then, only slowly. However, it does provide equality for men. It leaves no clause for any man to escape it. Or a woman, for that matter. Observe that the Ten Commandments themselves were gender neutral, and actually appeared to give men more responsibility, not priviledge.

Perhaps you are not Jewish or Christian, and thus predisposed to hate the Ten Commandments, regardless of merit. Or perhaps you have an extreme interpretation of the First Amendment.

Ok explain how hatred comes into play here.

Since we are at it. Do explain the phrase extreme interpretation.....

Ok explain how hatred comes into play here.
Observe the key word "perhaps". I don't know what CSW thinks. I can only guess.
[/quote/Since we are at it. Do explain the phrase extreme interpretation.....
Simple. I mean it as saying that the federal government has no role in speech, religion, etc, which it doesn't explicitly say.

That was a belief held long before and after the Jews. The concept started appearing only about 250 years ago, and even then, only slowly. However, it does provide equality for men. It leaves no clause for any man to escape it. Or a woman, for that matter. Observe that the Ten Commandments themselves were gender neutral, and actually appeared to give men more responsibility, not priviledge.

But they don't promote gender equality, which is a tenent of the US. Why should equality among males be a factor for disqualifying the Code of Hammurabi and not gender equality be a disqualifying factor for the ten commandments?

Perhaps you are not Jewish or Christian, and thus predisposed to hate the Ten Commandments, regardless of merit. Or perhaps you have an extreme interpretation of the First Amendment.
Hate? Hardly.

Simple. I mean it as saying that the federal government has no role in speech, religion, etc, which it doesn't explicitly say.
The court disagrees. Lemon v. Kurtzman?

But they don't promote gender equality, which is a tenent of the US. Why should equality among males be a factor for disqualifying the Code of Hammurabi and not gender equality be a disqualifying factor for the ten commandments?
There is inequality among males expressed in that code. Of course, a judge may hang a copy of it if he feels. But perhaps it is too long to hang. You gotta admiit that the Ten Commandments are incredibally concise.
Hate? Hardly.
Then is there an agenda? Are you arguing for the irrelevance of the Ten Commandments based on its religious bearings?

Simple. I mean it as saying that the federal government has no role in speech, religion, etc, which it doesn't explicitly say.

Well interpretation is part of the game. You want absolutes, look towards religion.

The fact that Madison and Jefferson spoke of the seperation of the church and states, gives more credence then the views of the hard core Christians.

The establishment clause means the goverment will be Religious neutral. When a goverment office allows one religion to use it's facilities to post a Religious Icon and denies others, it is no longer neutral.

The Supreme Court has a statue of Mosses and the tablets. It is part of 17 others. The ACLU questioned it and the Court decided it didn't violate the clause.

The idiot in Alabama was rightfully fired as his views were not neutral.

The Court is safe for the moment but if they get anymore Scalias then it will no longer have neutrality.

There is inequality among males expressed in that code. Of course, a judge may hang a copy of it if he feels. But perhaps it is too long to hang. You gotta admiit that the Ten Commandments are incredibally concise.

And filled with a lot of that nasty "belive in our god or rot, unbeliever" stuff. Won't go over too well. Shorten it by removing the first four and you'd have a stronger argument. With the first four in the document is much more of a religious text.

Then is there an agenda? Are you arguing for the irrelevance of the Ten Commandments based on its religious bearings?
That appears to be the point of this argument. It's not constitutional because of its religous bearings.

Well interpretation is part of the game. You want absolutes, look towards religion.

The fact that Madison and Jefferson spoke of the seperation of the church and states, gives more credence then the views of the hard core Christians.

The establishment clause means the goverment will be Religious neutral. When a goverment office allows one religion to use it's facilities to post a Religious Icon and denies others, it is no longer neutral.

The Supreme Court has a statue of Mosses and the tablets. It is part of 17 others. The ACLU questioned it and the Court decided it didn't violate the clause.

The idiot in Alabama was rightfully fired as his views were not neutral.

The Court is safe for the moment but if they get anymore Scalias then it will no longer have neutrality.

Jefferson was an advocate for Deism. So was Ben Franklin. Should we remove their images from public places, on the grounds that they are too intertwined with religion? Should the Jefferson Memorial be closed for this reason?

Jefferson was an advocate for Deism. So was Ben Franklin. Should we remove their images from public places, on the grounds that they are too intertwined with religion? Should the Jefferson Memorial be closed for this reason?
Seeing as the Jefferson Memorial doesn't have anything to do with religion...

Jefferson was an advocate for Deism. So was Ben Franklin. Should we remove their images from public places, on the grounds that they are too intertwined with religion? Should the Jefferson Memorial be closed for this reason?

No that is different. Men having Religion is not an issue. Setting up icons to tell others this Religion is more important then yours......

And filled with a lot of that nasty "belive in our god or rot, unbeliever" stuff. Won't go over too well. Shorten it by removing the first four and you'd have a stronger argument. With the first four in the document is much more of a religious text.
I, as well as quite a few in the legal system, seem to think that the first four establish a legitamite basis of authority, of which the other six derive from.
That appears to be the point of this argument. It's not constitutional because of its religous bearings.
Lots of things have religious bearings. That doesn't mean that they have no merit. If everything of a religious connotation (and not just Christian, either) were to be whitewashed, then we'd be a nation of no history. The Declaration of Independence would have to be removed from the National Archives for its references to "the Creator". Such historical sights, such as the Gloria Dei church in Philidelphia and the Lincoln Memorial would need to be altered or shut down, as they have religious references everywhere. Our history would be spineless if this were applied with total consistency.

Seeing as the Jefferson Memorial doesn't have anything to do with religion...
It invokes God on the engraving on the wall a few times, and is a government building.

I, as well as quite a few in the legal system, seem to think that the first four establish a legitamite basis of authority, of which the other six derive from.
And quite a few others in the legal system, including our esteemed supreme court, seem to think that the first four seem to establish a theocracy.

Lots of things have religious bearings. That doesn't mean that they have no merit. If everything of a religious connotation (and not just Christian, either) were to be whitewashed, then we'd be a nation of no history. The Declaration of Independence would have to be removed from the National Archives for its references to "the Creator". Such historical sights, such as the Gloria Dei church in Philidelphia and the Lincoln Memorial would need to be altered or shut down, as they have religious references everywhere. Our history would be spineless if this were applied with total consistency.
Historical applications have a different justification then these momuments. These monuments have no historical or cultural application, unlike your examples above.

No that is different. Men having Religion is not an issue. Setting up icons to tell others this Religion is more important then yours......
That is not necessarily true. If you believe that Buddha's Middle Path has more to do with the American legal system, and believe that his teachings need to be posted somewhere, then by all means, try doing it. You need to persuade quite a few people that this is true, but constitutionally, nothing is stopping you.

Lots of things have religious bearings. That doesn't mean that they have no merit. If everything of a religious connotation (and not just Christian, either) were to be whitewashed, then we'd be a nation of no history. The Declaration of Independence would have to be removed from the National Archives for its references to "the Creator". Such historical sights, such as the Gloria Dei church in Philidelphia and the Lincoln Memorial would need to be altered or shut down, as they have religious references everywhere. Our history would be spineless if this were applied with total consistency.

And you made the claim of extremism.

The estblishment clause does not say you can't have anything Religious or you can't say God(s).

The fact that Lincoln and Jefferson mention God is not an endorsement of Christianity over other Religions. They honor the men and not the Religion. Again spiritual men vs Religious Icons.

The DOI does not mention "the Creator" it's "their Creator" not exactly Christian in definition.

And quite a few others in the legal system, including our esteemed supreme court, seem to think that the first four seem to establish a theocracy.
Yet they are still posted. Why? I don't know. But it is there right should they see fit.
[/quote]Historical applications have a different justification then these momuments. These monuments have no historical or cultural application, unlike your examples above.[/QUOTE]
All of these buildings endorse religion on government property. Like it or not, what you favor means that this is true, should a ruling against the Commandments be applied with total consistency. Besides, it is more than monuments that have references to religion. Nothing before 1800 can be found without at least implying a religion.

And you made the claim of extremism.

The estblishment clause does not say you can't have anything Religious or you can't say God(s).

The fact that Lincoln and Jefferson mention God is not an endorsement of Christianity over other Religions. They honor the men and not the Religion. Again spiritual men vs Religious Icons.

The DOI does not mention "the Creator" it's "their Creator" not exactly Christian in definition.
It doesn't have to be Christian. You see, there is an assumption that Christianity needs to be whitewashed, when really, all religions need to leave government if that is the case. This "Creator" is implied to be either Christian or Deist, and does not allow for several creators, as many religions believe. Nor does it allow for no creators. Thus, such a ruling on the Ten Commandments would be absurd if it didn't insult a rich body of heritage.

That is not necessarily true. If you believe that Buddha's Middle Path has more to do with the American legal system, and believe that his teachings need to be posted somewhere, then by all means, try doing it. You need to persuade quite a few people that this is true, but constitutionally, nothing is stopping you.

Yes he can as long as other influences are allowed.

If you say we will post writings fromt he Buddha but you can't post the 10 commandments, then that violates the establishment clause as the goverment would favor Buddism over other Religions.

Influence on laws is a rather weak approach as it can be argued that many areas influenced the laws(ie Hamurabi).

The SCOTUS has a statue of Hamurabi......

Yes he can as long as other influences are allowed.

If you say we will post writings fromt he Buddha but you can't post the 10 commandments, then that violates the establishment clause as the goverment would favor Buddism over other Religions.
Of course, in the context of most courts, the Ten Commandments are mostly seen as being historical. But hey, if one can't find somewhere to post Buddhist tenets, then go to some socially liberal judge in California. I'm sure s/he would love to accomadate you.
Influence on laws is a rather weak approach as it can be argued that many areas influenced the laws(ie Hamurabi).

The SCOTUS has a statue of Hamurabi......
Not that I know who SCOTUS is, but whoever they are, I applaud them. They have every right to do so. I personally think that Hamurabi was important myself, though I feel that he is no reason to discount the Ten Commandments.

It doesn't have to be Christian. You see, there is an assumption that Christianity needs to be whitewashed, when really, all religions need to leave government if that is the case. This "Creator" is implied to be either Christian or Deist, and does not allow for several creators, as many religions believe. Nor does it allow for no creators. Thus, such a ruling on the Ten Commandments would be absurd if it didn't insult a rich body of heritage.

Again Religious Neutrality is what the goverment needs to be. Goverment by Religion is a bad thing. The founders remembered the History of Europe and the wars of the Religions. A free people should be able to worship without goverment interference. That is why we have the establishment clause. In order to keep goverment interference in check, it can't be beholden to one Religion. That is why we have the establishement clause.

The use of their Creator implies that it means peoples views of what they think the creator is. Be it God, Allah, Vishnu....

If they wanted Christian they would have said God and the Creator.

Keeping the Goverment religious neutral does not destroy the heritage of the United States.

Of course, in the context of most courts, the Ten Commandments are mostly seen as being historical. But hey, if one can't find somewhere to post Buddhist tenets, then go to some socially liberal judge in California. I'm sure s/he would love to accomadate you.

Again Historical context means the ability to include all influences. Saying only the 10 commandments are allowed is pushing Christianity.


Not that I know who SCOTUS is, but whoever they are, I applaud them. They have every right to do so. I personally think that Hamurabi was important myself, though I feel that he is no reason to discount the Ten Commandments.

Supreme Court Of The United States.

They have 17 states of people that defined the laws of this land. Mosses, Napoleon, Hamurabi......

Again Religious Neutrality is what the goverment needs to be. Goverment by Religion is a bad thing. The founders remembered the History of Europe and the wars of the Religions. A free people should be able to worship without goverment interference. That is why we have the establishment clause. In order to keep goverment interference in check, it can't be beholden to one Religion. That is why we have the establishement clause.

The use of their Creator implies that it means peoples views of what they think the creator is. Be it God, Allah, Vishnu....

If they wanted Christian they would have said God and the Creator.

Keeping the Goverment religious neutral does not destroy the heritage of the United States.
Religiously neutral, I agree. But if that means discounting religious heritage, then yes. Religion is like the bag lady for the government, and the government is the merchant: while the merchant may fear the bag lady being in his store, he cannot deny her past contribution of cans.

Religiously neutral, I agree. But if that means discounting religious heritage, then yes. Religion is like the bag lady for the government, and the government is the merchant: while the merchant may fear the bag lady being in his store, he cannot deny her past contribution of cans.

Ok Religious Heritage? You don't mean the Myth of the Puritans now do you?

Again Historical context means the ability to include all influences. Saying only the 10 commandments are allowed is pushing Christianity.
I believe that as long as no one proclaims that explicitly, then they are fine. We all agree that the Ten Commandments can be used in a historical context, right?


Supreme Court Of The United States.

They have 17 states of people that defined the laws of this land. Mosses, Napoleon, Hamurabi......
I never saw that acronym before.

Ok Religious Heritage? You don't mean the Myth of the Puritans now do you?
No. But don't forget, religious freedom was what drew many to the colonies. The Puritans didn't have it, but many of the colonies did. They contributed to a rich theological heritage that, by 1776, was probably more diverse than even Europe's. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, the mufti of Constantinople could preach in Philidelphia, and not fear backlash.

I believe that as long as no one proclaims that explicitly, then they are fine. We all agree that the Ten Commandments can be used in a historical context, right?

Historical context is fine. As in the case of the SCOTUS example, I have no issues what soever.

Alabama was wrong. I think Kentucky is probably wrong and I have think the Texas case might be wrong(Have to get more facts).


I never saw that acronym before.
No worries. I had to think about it the first time I read it. ;)

Historical context is fine. As in the case of the SCOTUS example, I have no issues what soever.

Alabama was wrong. I think Kentucky is probably wrong and I have think the Texas case might be wrong(Have to get more facts).

Still, I believe that the Alabama incident did not warrant the justice's removal. The other two, however, lead us to no reason to believe that religion is an explicit motive in this. As long as that is the case, I find it perfectly fine.

And to borrow from Maddox, Bill O'Reilly is a big, blubbering vagina.

At least he is not a bloody, blithering butthole. ;)

I seem to remember a discussion in another thread about natural human rights. Rights that are not granted by the government nor subject to the will of the majority. The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, seeks to protect a few such rights.

The Rights not attributed to the government are automatically implied to the people. And the people rule on a majority system. We don't have a "Shadow Government" as some other nations do.

The rights of the one or few must be protected from the *tyranny* of the minority, but the reverse is also true.

IMO, I can't see how allowing a display is at all similar to (say) having voters be required to read before voting. Or that a citizen MUST stand for the Pledge of Alliegence/can't burn a flag.


James Madison and other Founders viewed the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause as protecting freedom of conscience.

And some of the Founders didn't. That's why it's freedom of conscience. :)

If the 10 Commandments can't be displayed on public land, how soon will hunting on public land come under fire by anti-hunters? How about *any* public land activity by the animal rights crowd? Etc.

The point is more that in such a context, the commandments would not have a religious meaning, but a historical meaning for their influence on law.

Exactly!

Still, I believe that the Alabama incident did not warrant the justice's removal. The other two, however, lead us to no reason to believe that religion is an explicit motive in this. As long as that is the case, I find it perfectly fine.
Then I suggest you actually read the damn thing. Roy Moore put up a monument in the middle of the state court house without permission, refused to add up any other historical documents which the 10 commandments was supposedly part of, and then refused to remvoe the monument on order from a higher court. His ass was booted out of office by the other justices. And now he is manipulating Florida churches to give him shitloads of money by selling videos of him illegally putting the monument in the court house and speaking, none of which really goes to his defense because the state of Alabama had to pay for it.

All of this discussion begs the question of why there is any need for the government to display the Ten Commandments in the first place.

The rights of the one or few must be protected from the *tyranny* of the minority, but the reverse is also true.

Other than sounding like Spock, this makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

The government stays out of religion. Period. How is that the "tyranny" of the few?

(And before you start, it is true that the separation of church and state has not been perfect. It is not always an easy line to draw and involves complexities not discussed here. Also we are not perfect.)

IMO, I can't see how allowing a display is at all similar to (say) having voters be required to read before voting. Or that a citizen MUST stand for the Pledge of Alliegence/can't burn a flag.

Let's say I live in one of the counties in question in Kentucky. I am required by law to pay taxes. The county uses my tax dollars to pay for a display of the Ten Commandments. My tax dollars are being used to promote religious beliefs. Basic violation of the First Amendment.

Now, I'm being sued by my neighbor. He is a baptist. He tends to wear a cross on a chain or on his lapel. He is suing me because he believes he has a right of way across my yard for his new church. Aren't I justified in feeling a bit uncomfortable with going to court where there is a nice big display of the Ten Commandments for all the jury to view as the come and go?

But both of my examples pale before the words of James Madison:

[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties....Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
-From the "Memorial and Remonstrance," 1785

If the 10 Commandments can't be displayed on public land, how soon will hunting on public land come under fire by anti-hunters? How about *any* public land activity by the animal rights crowd? Etc.

That is just silly. If there were a provision of the Constitution forbidding the establishment of hunting, then you would have a suitable analogy. Of course, then there would be a problem with the government promoting hunting.

BTW, you keep ignoring that the 10 Commandments didn't magically appear in the courthouses. Nor is this some individual with a placard standing on public land. Here the governments in question chose a particular religious document and paid for it to be displayed. How is that not favoring religion?

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

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)


That purely literal interpretation is neither the intent nor the accepted interpretation.

Think for a minute about how the literalist interpretation of the Establishment Clause would apply to the Free Exercise Clause. Under the literal intepretation you apply, the police could go around shooting people who attended church. No new law. Just putting bullets through church-goers.

All of this discussion begs the question of why there is any need for the government to display the Ten Commandments in the first place.

Is there a need to give a Federal Holiday to Martin Luther King Jr? He wasn't a President, and no other person has one. No, it's because the people *wanted* it. Likewise, the people want this.
There are many more examples.
Consider: in DC, why have a National Aquarium? It's not like everyone has a love of fish. What about the Iolani Palace in Hawaii? Here is the US Government supporting the restoration of an Imperial symbol! What possible need does that serve?
Answer: But the people wanted it. :)


Other than sounding like Spock, this makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

While Dr. Spock is a respected physician, what are you trying to say?

The government stays out of religion. Period. How is that the "tyranny" of the few?

The government most certainly does *not* stay out of religion, nor religion out of government. I've posted many examples of ways that religion is involved therein. I'm not arguing that the US has an official religion, I'm arguing that it is not a wholly secular state.

The tyranny of the few was the "sexual harrace-ment" a few years ago instead of "sexual har-ass-ment". The tyranny of the few is Hollywood blackballing The Passion. The tyranny of the few was slavery and the Jim Crow laws. The tyranny of the few was Prohibition.

The tyranny of the few is the minority subjecting the majority to their view.

The government is the will of the people. The people want this.


(And before you start, it is true that the separation of church and state has not been perfect. It is not always an easy line to draw and involves complexities not discussed here. Also we are not perfect.)

Not a matter of starting. Mankind by nature is a complex beast. You can't have the sports star that only plays his game. Most people of the nation ARE religious. Given.
I see nothing wrong with a NON-RELIGIOUS display! It's not like we're talking about forming gulags for non-believers to be converted in, and it's not as if such a display is going to suddenly contaminate a jury pool. We're not having the Lord's Prayer carved into it. And, lest I sound like a broken record, it's *not* a shrine.


Let's say I live in one of the counties in question in Kentucky. I am required by law to pay taxes. The county uses my tax dollars to pay for a display of the Ten Commandments. My tax dollars are being used to promote religious beliefs. Basic violation of the First Amendment.

My federal tax dollars were used to pay for an art exhibit in NYC that had a cross in a jar of urine. QED.


Now, I'm being sued by my neighbor. He is a baptist. He tends to wear a cross on a chain or on his lapel. He is suing me because he believes he has a right of way across my yard for his new church. Aren't I justified in feeling a bit uncomfortable with going to court where there is a nice big display of the Ten Commandments for all the jury to view as the come and go?

No more than I am going to see the other art in that museum. And, unlike your example, mine actually happened.


But both of my examples pale before the words of James Madison:

[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties....Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
-From the "Memorial and Remonstrance," 1785

And who is arguing for that? I've said multiple times in this thread that any and all such ancient legal documents should be displayed. I'm arguing that the point that it favors Christians is spurious, as the Commandments are also important to the Jewish faith.


That is just silly. If there were a provision of the Constitution forbidding the establishment of hunting, then you would have a suitable analogy. Of course, then there would be a problem with the government promoting hunting.

Not at all. You clearly stated it is public land. Short hop from 10 Commandments on public land to hunting. With the 10, you're claiming that is disenfranchises a minority. Anti-hunters could use the same arguement, saying that they now can't use that public land during hunting season.

And, BTW, the government *is* promoting hunting by your definition, since it is allowed on many public lands!


BTW, you keep ignoring that the 10 Commandments didn't magically appear in the courthouses.

I wasn't aware that they could. The Ark has been missing since the 30s in some warehouse in DC... :D


Nor is this some individual with a placard standing on public land. Here the governments in question chose a particular religious document and paid for it to be displayed. How is that not favoring religion?

How is it not favoring free speech?

Markreich makes an excellent point here an I hope some people catch on to it. ONE person can file a suit whenever they feel "persecuted" because of something they saw that "offended" them - and make it a hot button topic that both sides pour money into defense of their position.

It's only a short step from religious symbols to bastions of free press and other civil liberties.

If you own a leftist paper and don't like what a so-called conservative paper prints? Take them to court. Have the government shut them down, and give their assets to your organization.

If you're an "eco nut" and don't like people who hunt / drive SUVs / whatever? Take them to court. Opress them in the name of a cause.

Where does it stop? How can you prove a lack of ulterior motive?

but I have a lot to cover.

I’ll start with some preliminaries:

1. First, I'll try again with the concept:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

--Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

2. It is true that it is not always easy to draw the line as to what government activity violates the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court has struggled with this over time, with different views taking the majority from time-to-time. A complicated set of tests have evolved that generally require consideration on a fact-specific basis. The motto on the coins is an example of a completely different doctrinal category, the de minimis use of religious language for secular purposes, explained and developed by Justice O'Connor in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 124 S. Ct. 2301, 2323-27 (2004). The fact that those like you continually cite to such as examples as basis for further commingling of church and state suggests that perhaps such uses should be removed.

3. Regardless, each of the displays of the Ten Commandments at issue in the recent SCOTUS cases:
1. Aids at least one religion
2. Prefers one religion over another
3. Uses tax revenues to teach religion
4. Do not serve a legitimate state interest
The first 3 are each independent reasons why the displays violate the Establishment Clause. The fourth is an additional indicator.

After all, this is just tad religious(emphasis added):
The Ten Commandments
I AM the LORD thy God.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy
God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days
may be long upon the land which the Lord thy
God giveth thee.
Thou shall not kill.
Thou shall not commit adultery.
Thou shall not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife nor his
manservant nor his maidservant, nor his cattle
nor anything that is his neighbor’s.

4. You are simply wrong in asserting that somehow there is a "standard" version of the Ten Commandments that is OK to all Christians & Jews. (Not that it would be Constitutional to post even if it was.) As you persist in this assertion, I will have to explain.

“There are at least five distinctive versions of the Decalogue. In some cases the differences among them might seem trivial or semantic, but lurking behind the disparate accounts are deep theological disputes.” Steven Lubet, The Ten Commandments in Alabama, 15 Const. Comment. 471, 474 (1998). For example, there are separate general Protestant, Catholic, Luthern, and Jewish versions. The Jewish biblical text is comprised of thirteen sentences that are the basis for the Ten Commandments; in Christian texts there are seventeen sentences that are grouped together to form the Ten Commandments. Religions differ greatly in how they present the Ten Commandments and the choice of one version inherently prefers one religion over others.

For example, in Jewish versions of the Ten Commandments, the first commandment is: “I the Lord am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.” In the Protestant version, the first commandment is, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”; in the Catholic version it is, “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.”

The second commandment also varies among religions. For Jews, the second commandment states: “You shall have no other gods besides me. You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image.” In contrast, the Catholic version of the second commandment is, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” The prohibition against graven images, included in the Jewish Second Commandment, is not found anywhere in the version used in the standard Catholic catechism. In the case from Texas, the court monument adopts the Lutheran version which places “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images” as part of the first commandment.

Differences in the content among the religions and their versions of the Ten Commandments often matter enormously. For instance, the differences in the wording of the Second Commandment among religions are extremely important to matters of religious faith and practice. The Catholic Church’s version, unlike those of most other religions, does not prohibit graven images. This reflects fundamental differences in religious practices and has been a source of great tension, and even violence, among religions since at least the Reformation. See John C. Holbert, The Ten Commandments 10 (2002) (“The reformers of the sixteenth century (especially the radical followers of Calvin) . . . use[d] the second commandment as part of their violent polemic against what they thought were the idolatries of the Roman Catholicism. . . . Statues of Mary, as well as those of many saints, were repugnant to many reformers, and the second commandment became a weapon against their use.”) Indeed, even in more recent times, the differing content of the second commandment among religions is a source of conflict and tension. See, e.g., Joseph Lewis, The Ten Commandments 26 (1946) (accusing Catholics of having “a mutilated set of Commandments”); Holbert, supra at 25 (describing conflicts resulting from varying versions of the second commandment).

Is there a need to give a Federal Holiday to Martin Luther King Jr? He wasn't a President, and no other person has one. No, it's because the people *wanted* it. Likewise, the people want this.
There are many more examples.
Consider: in DC, why have a National Aquarium? It's not like everyone has a love of fish. What about the Iolani Palace in Hawaii? Here is the US Government supporting the restoration of an Imperial symbol! What possible need does that serve?
Answer: But the people wanted it. :)

Great. The majority can have lots of things, but they cannot (without further amendment the Constitution) violate Constitutional rights such as those protected by the First Amendment. And, even if the Constitution we would have the problem of natural rights – which I seem to remember you favoring.

Rights do not simply yield to the whim of the majority -- whether it be the prohibition against establishment of religion, the free exercise of religion, the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizures, the right to free speech, ... or the "right to bear arms."

The government most certainly does *not* stay out of religion, nor religion out of government. I've posted many examples of ways that religion is involved therein. I'm not arguing that the US has an official religion, I'm arguing that it is not a wholly secular state.

It is good that you are not arguing that the US has an official religion as that would be the ultimate violation of the Establishment Clause. You are right that religion is involved here, which is why it should not be government-sponsored.

As to the examples of minor government displays of religion, your argument is illogical. We have a general separation of church and state. Nonetheless, the various religious displays have been allowed under particular circumstances. Why does allowing some require us to allow more?

You do not suggest we ban the minor religious examples you have posted, correct? If we have to choose between allowing further establishment of religion and changing our currency, the latter is the proper course.

Why are you not satisfied with the existing exceptions to the separation of church and state?

The tyranny of the few was the "sexual harrace-ment" a few years ago instead of "sexual har-ass-ment". The tyranny of the few is Hollywood blackballing The Passion. The tyranny of the few was slavery and the Jim Crow laws. The tyranny of the few was Prohibition.

No insult intended, but this is a bit bizarre. :confused: None of your examples have anything to do with the Establishment Clause.

I see nothing wrong with a NON-RELIGIOUS display! It's not like we're talking about forming gulags for non-believers to be converted in, and it's not as if such a display is going to suddenly contaminate a jury pool. We're not having the Lord's Prayer carved into it. And, lest I sound like a broken record, it's *not* a shrine.

:headbang: IT IS NOT A NON-RELIGIOUS DISPLAY!!!!!

The source of the Ten Commandments is religion. The Ten Commandments express a message that is thoroughly and essentially religious: there is a God and that God has decreed rules for behavior.

These include rules for religious observance, such as, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images,” “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” and “Remember the Sabbath Day.”

In fact, I am not at all sure the Lord’s Prayer is more religious than the Ten Commandments.

My federal tax dollars were used to pay for an art exhibit in NYC that had a cross in a jar of urine. QED.
No more than I am going to see the other art in that museum. And, unlike your example, mine actually happened.

Are you saying it was OK that your tax dollars were used that way -- or are you being hypocritical?

And who is arguing for that? I've said multiple times in this thread that any and all such ancient legal documents should be displayed. I'm arguing that the point that it favors Christians is spurious, as the Commandments are also important to the Jewish faith.

First, the cases in question involve the Ten Commandments alone or with post-litigation window-dressing.

Second, “any and all such ancient legal documents should be displayed”? So Texas should build equal size statutes for every scrap of writing in our legal tradition? As with other local and state governments, my guess is Texas would remove its statute before complying with such a requirement.

Come on, admit it. You don’t want the Ten Commandments displayed because of their secular historical value. You want them displayed as a religious creed.


Not at all. You clearly stated it is public land. Short hop from 10 Commandments on public land to hunting. With the 10, you're claiming that is disenfranchises a minority. Anti-hunters could use the same arguement, saying that they now can't use that public land during hunting season.
And, BTW, the government *is* promoting hunting by your definition, since it is allowed on many public lands!

Um, is hunting protected by the Constitution? Is anti-hunting? You’re blowing smoke.

I wasn't aware that they could. The Ark has been missing since the 30s in some warehouse in DC... :D

:D . . . but you avoided the question. The government pays for a religious display on public land. Worse, a statement of core religious beliefs in the what should be the heart of government neutrality, a courthouse.

How is it not favoring free speech?

Because it is the GOVERNMENT speaking! :headbang:

An individual –- such as my hypothetical guy with a billboard – can exercise both his right to free speech and free exercise of religion by promoting the Ten Commandments. When the government promotes the Ten Commandments, it is endorsing one or more religions.

1. The Establishment Clause forbids not only state practices that aid one religion or prefer one religion over another, but also those practices that aid all religions and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion.
It does not aid one religion, it aids at least three. (Jewish, Catholic & Protestant). More if you count the Protestant denominations seperately.

So you admit it (a) aids at least some religions, (b) prefers some religions over others, and (c) prefers religion over nonreligion. All three are impermissible and any one of which is sufficient to displaying the Ten Commandments unconstitutional.

(Plus your premise is wrong. See above.)

2. The Establishment Clause prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or making adherance to a religion relevant in any way to a person's participation or standing in the political community.

And having the Commandments at a courthouse does this how? The existance of them being there doesn't say that the Government is taking a position any more than "In God We Trust" does one currency, or having one swear "So Help Me God" on the stand.

When (as in the cases before SCOTUS) a county takes tax dollars to build a display of the Ten Commandments (particularly a specific version of the Ten Commandments), the county is at least appearing to take a position in favor of the religious beliefs inherent in the Ten Commandments.

(I’ve dealt with the rest above.)

3. The Ten Commandments play an important part in the spiritual lives of many Americans and it is precisely for this reason that the government should not be in the business of endorsing or promoting religious beliefs.
This is the Chewbacca Defense if ever I heard it: the people believe in something, so we can't have a representation of it, lest we promote the people (whom we represent)'s beliefs.
(You must acquit!!)

Apparently you need to (a) watch that episode of South Park again and (b) read a little James Madison.

Regardless, “religion” in the First Amendment means the same in the Establishment Clause as it does in the Free Exercise Clause.

You say the government can build a monument of the Ten Commandments. If that were true what would keep the government from forbidding anyone to build a monument of the Ten Commandments?


Actually, no.
"Judaism, Catholicism and Protestantism all agree that the Bible lists the ten commandments in chapter 20 of the book of Exodus, that passage contains more than ten imperative statements."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments

Uh, yes. Read that quote carefully. They agree (1) the ten commandments are listed in Exodus 20 and (2) that passage contains more than 10 statements. That is precious little agreement.

Read down the page a little and you find extensive discussion of the doctrinal disputes concerning the Ten Commandments.

FALSE, as I posted in a preceding post and have been backed up on. By the 6th century, England had been Christianized for at least 3 generations.

TRUE. (1) The 7th century “dooms” that became common law were compiled pre-existing customs: the substance of these laws had existed among Germanic tribes before they were written down and before the Anglos-Saxons were Christianized. Thus, the American law traces back through centuries of English law to the barbarian laws of non-Christian German tribes – and this line of development is far more direct than any development from the Ten Commandments.

(2) By your own account the Romans occupied England for 250 years before Rome became Christianized. And prohibitions on murder, theft, perjury, and defamation existed in pre-Christian Roman law. Again, the Roman influence on English common law is more direct and precedes the influence (if any) of the Ten Commandments.

11. When Ten Commandments are prominently displayed in or around a public courthouse -- on public land, paid for by public taxes -- a reasonable observer would view the display as symbolically endorsing religion. This is impermissible under the Establishment Clause (and contrary to a free society).

A reasonable observer could also conclude that because the courthouse has an analog clock on it, that the court was anti-technology for not going digital. Or anti-Amish, for having a clock at all.

What part of “reasonable” don’t you understand? … Nevermind. :D

Markreich makes an excellent point here an I hope some people catch on to it. ONE person can file a suit whenever they feel "persecuted" because of something they saw that "offended" them - and make it a hot button topic that both sides pour money into defense of their position.

It's only a short step from religious symbols to bastions of free press and other civil liberties.

If you own a leftist paper and don't like what a so-called conservative paper prints? Take them to court. Have the government shut them down, and give their assets to your organization.

If you're an "eco nut" and don't like people who hunt / drive SUVs / whatever? Take them to court. Opress them in the name of a cause.

Where does it stop? How can you prove a lack of ulterior motive?

OK, stop and take a deep breath.

The government cannot require you to take down your religious symbols. That’s because of the Free Exercise Clause.

By the same token, the government cannot put up its own religious symbols. That’s because of the Establishment Clause.

The government cannot shut down a newspaper simply because it offends someone. That’s because of the freedom of the press.

Are you starting to see how this works?

The displays of the Ten Commandments in question were by the government, on government property, and with government funds. The government has no place spending money promoting a religious doctrine. You are free to promote the Ten Commandments however you wish -- just not through the apparatus of government.

but I have a lot to cover.


You'll have to wait for a reply...

I am currently printing out your post, grabbing a pen, and am planning on having a nice long constitutional.

Hopefully, I will be able to purge both my bowels and your post of shit. :D

With apologies for the long post . . .
________________________________________
but I have a lot to cover.

I’ll start with some preliminaries:


I hereby call shenanigans on your preliminaries. I am not here to debate points of law, which is your career, not mine. I am here to debate concepts and points of view.

Therefore, I reply to your post with this extraneous content edited out.
If you want to debate me, great. I look forward to it. But you’re going to have to debate me as a citizen, not as a lawyer. :)


Great. The majority can have lots of things, but they cannot (without further amendment the Constitution) violate Constitutional rights such as those protected by the First Amendment. And, even if the Constitution we would have the problem of natural rights – which I seem to remember you favoring.

But the 1st Amendment protects free speech. You’re limiting free speech here. Remember, it is not being asked that the Commandments be put up in a religious context, nor exclusively. If a faction wants the Code of Hammurabi put up next to it, cool.


Rights do not simply yield to the whim of the majority -- whether it be the prohibition against establishment of religion, the free exercise of religion, the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizures, the right to free speech, ... or the "right to bear arms."

Nor do rights yield to the whim of the minority. You make no case with this point.
BTW, you totally failed to counter with any good reason WHY the US does have an MLK holiday or the Nat’l aquarium, or supports the Iolani Palace. Thus you fail to refute the effect of the will of the people, which is the central tenet of government: the government serves the people, not the other way around.
BTW2: Cute including the 2nd Amendment in there. It also does you no good: I believe that we should be able to have legal Uzis and M60s, so long as we have our licenses to ensure that we’re not criminals, insane, etc. It’s kind of ironic, btw, given your posts on the gun thread vis-à-vis Zaxon.


It is good that you are not arguing that the US has an official religion as that would be the ultimate violation of the Establishment Clause. You are right that religion is involved here, which is why it should not be government-sponsored.

Well, duh. ;)


As to the examples of minor government displays of religion, your argument is illogical. We have a general separation of church and state. Nonetheless, the various religious displays have been allowed under particular circumstances. Why does allowing some require us to allow more?

I have no idea why you consider it illogical for a group to want to do something. You call the swearing in of the President minor?? :rolleyes: Silly me.


You do not suggest we ban the minor religious examples you have posted, correct? If we have to choose between allowing further establishment of religion and changing our currency, the latter is the proper course.

Again, they are not minor. And, *I* am not. But I guess you are by this post, no?

If we choose to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency, it’s a victory for the Tyranny of the Minority.


Why are you not satisfied with the existing exceptions to the separation of church and state?

Because of your blatant misuse of it:
“Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ”
And displaying of the Commandments is NOT Congress making a law on the establishment of religion. It is NOT prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It is NOT abridging freedom of speech. If is NOT abridging the press, the right to peaceably assemble of petition the government for a redress of grievances. QED!


No insult intended, but this is a bit bizarre. None of your examples have anything to do with the Establishment Clause.

Sir, you digress. The Establishment Clause has nothing to do with my post. You asked: “The government stays out of religion. Period. How is that the "tyranny" of the few?”

I replied with:

"The tyranny of the few was the "sexual harrace-ment" a few years ago instead of "sexual har-ass-ment". The tyranny of the few is Hollywood blackballing The Passion. The tyranny of the few was slavery and the Jim Crow laws. The tyranny of the few was Prohibition.”

So I clearly defined the tyranny of the few.
What’s the problem?
(Please note, I also have clearly demonstrated no less than a half a dozen ways that the government does not stay out of religion to date.)


IT IS NOT A NON-RELIGIOUS DISPLAY!!!!!
Thank you for this. Please note this symbol : (&&^&&). This will be used to reference this piece of your post where you contradict this statement later in your argument.


The source of the Ten Commandments is religion. The Ten Commandments express a message that is thoroughly and essentially religious: there is a God and that God has decreed rules for behavior.

It does, in as much as “In God we Trust” does on currency.

BTW, if religion is really anathema to the government, why did the Republic begin with a prayer?
“Thus it happened that the first act of Congress on September 7, 1774, was an official prayer, pronounced by an Episcopalian clergyman dressed in his pontificals. And what did he read? He read a Jewish prayer, Psalm 35 in The Book of Common Prayer:
Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me. Fight against them that fight against me. Take hold of buckler and shield, and rise up for my help. Say to my soul, "I am your salvation." Let those be ashamed and dishonored who seek my life. Let those be turned back and humiliated who devise evil against me.
Before the Reverend Duché knelt Washington, Henry, Randolph, Rutledge, Lee, and Jay."
http://www.hooverdigest.org/002/novak.html

Sorry, but I don’t find much strength in the “we’re a secular nation” argument. Most of the fonding fathers were Freemasons, and Freemasons require you to believe in A GOD. It doesn’t need to be the Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim God, but A GOD.

It seems to me that having the Commandments displayed at a courthouse wouldn't be counter to the will of the founders. I think you need to read some Jefferson. ;)


These include rules for religious observance, such as, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images,” “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” and “Remember the Sabbath Day.”

In fact, I am not at all sure the Lord’s Prayer is more religious than the Ten Commandments.

And? All you do with your reply is state that you agree that it is a non-religious display (thanks again) and that it is religious in source. So are the crosses and stars of david headstones in Federal cemeteries. Yet no one proposes we take those down.

Also: Before the arrival of the non-English speaking immigrants in the 19th century (Germans, Poles, Italians, et al), most jurisdictions DID have laws against work on Sunday and idolatry. You still can’t buy alcohol in stores in Connecticut TO THIS VERY DAY for that reason.

Likewise, not going to church on Sunday was an offense in the Colonies of New Haven, Connecticut, and Massachusettes (and probably others, I can't speak for them). And yes, New Haven was its own colony before it merged with Connecticut.


Are you saying it was OK that your tax dollars were used that way -- or are you being hypocritical?

I’m saying that SINCE the Federal Government obviously grants money to fund FREE SPEECH with the use of religious symbols that it MUST be fine with displaying the 10 Commandments, ipso facto. Both amount to the same thing: Freedom of Speech.


First, the cases in question involve the Ten Commandments alone or with post-litigation window-dressing.

Er? What? Please respond to my posts. Here you’re posting about something that has nothing to do with the quote of me. I don’t know about what cases are in question, as there are none in this discussion.


Second, “any and all such ancient legal documents should be displayed”? So Texas should build equal size statutes for every scrap of writing in our legal tradition? As with other local and state governments, my guess is Texas would remove its statute before complying with such a requirement.

If there is a demand for it, sure. The government serves the people. If the people want it, fine.


Come on, admit it. You don’t want the Ten Commandments displayed because of their secular historical value. You want them displayed as a religious creed.

Um, actually, no. I believe in the maximal freedom under the law, so long as that freedom does not directly takes away from the freedom of another. I am against gun control, against drug laws, prohibition (as a concept), etc.
And, since they’re not religious anyway… (&&^&&)


Um, is hunting protected by the Constitution? Is anti-hunting? You’re blowing smoke.

Um, no, I'm quite serious.

Please reread:
Not at all. You clearly stated it is public land. Short hop from 10 Commandments on public land to hunting. With the 10, you're claiming that is disenfranchises a minority. Anti-hunters could use the same arguement, saying that they now can't use that public land during hunting season.
And, BTW, the government *is* promoting hunting by your definition, since it is allowed on many public lands!
… so: If the way public land can be legislated against the 10 Commandments, the same can be done against hunting or any other activity. Then the land is no longer public. It becomes a battleground for different interest groups. :(

And, yes, Hunting is protected by the Constitution. So is your right to post here, fly a kite, or eat anchovy pizza! You might recall:

“Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ”


. . . but you avoided the question. The government pays for a religious display on public land. Worse, a statement of core religious beliefs in the what should be the heart of government neutrality, a courthouse.

First: Look back up to (&&^&&). You know it isn’t religious.

Second: I didn’t avoid it. I don’t know how each and every set of Commandments got to a courthouse. I imagine that some were paid for by individuals, some by groups, and some maybe even by local/state government funds. Does it matter?
(BTW: look at the end of this post. I cite a website with a privately funded 10 Commandments.)
And courthouses are most assuredly not neutral. You want to tell me that a statue is going to do something that the normal hubris of trial (newspapers, interest groups, television) doesn’t do already and to a much greater degree?

It’s a display, and no more effective than a flag or a clock in changing someone’s mindset. Or a tv camera.


Because it is the GOVERNMENT speaking!
Ah, good sir, it is not. It is the PEOPLE speaking. The people elect the government, we are a representational government nation. I don’t recall any national referendums since I started voting in 1988. So this IS the voice of the people.


An individual –- such as my hypothetical guy with a billboard – can exercise both his right to free speech and free exercise of religion by promoting the Ten Commandments. When the government promotes the Ten Commandments, it is endorsing one or more religions.

First: Look back up to (&&^&&). You know it isn’t religious.

Second: As just above this one, the government is the people.

Third: It’s not promotion, since other ancient laws can be placed right next to it, as is done at the Supreme Court.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Markreich
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe
1. The Establishment Clause forbids not only state practices that aid one religion or prefer one religion over another, but also those practices that aid all religions and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion.

It does not aid one religion, it aids at least three. (Jewish, Catholic & Protestant). More if you count the Protestant denominations separately.


So you admit it (a) aids at least some religions, (b) prefers some religions over others, and (c) prefers religion over nonreligion. All three are impermissible and any one of which is sufficient to displaying the Ten Commandments unconstitutional.
(A&B): I admit that they are revered by these three (more by some counting) religions. I admit that it aids in people’s understanding of those religions. Just as MLK day does for Black Americans or Iolani Palace does for Hawaiian identities.
As for (C): does it? The nonreligious spend US monies with “In God we Trust” on them. Surely there is a tolerance level that is acceptable in society… like how we must tolerate the KKK parading down Main Street if they want to and are doing so legally. Or Rush Limbaugh. Or Al Franken. Or any of the number of other things which we all tolerate, as is normal in a society.


(Plus your premise is wrong. See above.)
Without this reply, you can’t surmise my premise. :D


When (as in the cases before SCOTUS) a county takes tax dollars to build a display of the Ten Commandments (particularly a specific version of the Ten Commandments), the county is at least appearing to take a position in favor of the religious beliefs inherent in the Ten Commandments.
Look back up to (&&^&&). You know it isn’t religious.

(I’ve dealt with the rest above.)
Look back up to (&&^&&). You know it isn’t religious.


Apparently you need to (a) watch that episode of South Park again and (b) read a little James Madison.

Actually, I saw that South Park a week or two ago. I posted it because you’re not making sense and must acquit!! :D

Seriously: What you said makes no sense, since the government is the people. If the people have a religious facet, so too does the government . I submit the myriad uses of “God” on currency, in the Pledge of Allegiance, in The Star Spangled Banner.


Regardless, “religion” in the First Amendment means the same in the Establishment Clause as it does in the Free Exercise Clause.

Hmm! I agree!
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm
“the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion” Vs.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Which the 10 Commandments being on courthouse grounds does not; as in the case with Military Chaplins, it is a reasonable "display/piece" of the "religious world" by the Government.

ALSO: Look back up to (&&^&&). You know it isn’t religious.


You say the government can build a monument of the Ten Commandments. If that were true what would keep the government from forbidding anyone to build a monument of the Ten Commandments?

The will of the people. Which you seem to not care to speak of.


Uh, yes. Read that quote carefully. They agree (1) the ten commandments are listed in Exodus 20 and (2) that passage contains more than 10 statements. That is precious little agreement.

Read down the page a little and you find extensive discussion of the doctrinal disputes concerning the Ten Commandments.

Yes, I did before I posted it.
So… you expect an absolute answer across several thousand years and millions of practitioners? People can’t agree on “regular or spicy tender crisp” chicken at KFC! (Please consider that, it’s not as trite as it sounds.)

It’s not really a factor in any event: If they posted 14 Commandments with a little “bar” between 10 and 11 I’d be just as happy, as it is still documenting ancient laws and displaying the will of the people as completely as possible. (That little bar, btw, would keep it from being a Jewish document, or whatnot.)


TRUE. (1) The 7th century “dooms” that became common law were compiled pre-existing customs: the substance of these laws had existed among Germanic tribes before they were written down and before the Anglos-Saxons were Christianized. Thus, the American law traces back through centuries of English law to the barbarian laws of non-Christian German tribes – and this line of development is far more direct than any development from the Ten Commandments.

This is a side debate, but even if I were to agree 100% (which I’m not) and say that the Romans had no influence on English law: fine. If anyone wants to put up those laws on stone tablets and place them on the courthouse grounds, go for it. I’m all for it.


(2) By your own account the Romans occupied England for 250 years before Rome became Christianized. And prohibitions on murder, theft, perjury, and defamation existed in pre-Christian Roman law. Again, the Roman influence on English common law is more direct and precedes the influence (if any) of the Ten Commandments.

Er? I think that you are confused:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8338149&postcount=19
* England was conquered by the Emperor Claudius in 43 AD.
* Constantine converted the Roman Empire in 313 AD.
* Rome abandons Londinium/England in 407 AD.
That makes for 94 years, or 3.76 GENERATIONS of official Roman Christianity in England, using 25 year generations. Call it four, really.


What part of “reasonable” don’t you understand? … Nevermind.
I take a small umbrage here. The Amish have to tolerate modern technology in the courthouse. Yet they do it. It’s TOLERATION of something different.
Same thing with the Commandments.
I find it amazing that people which are so for “diversity” are so intolerant of it. :(


OK, stop and take a deep breath.

The government cannot require you to take down your religious symbols. That’s because of the Free Exercise Clause.

By the same token, the government cannot put up its own religious symbols. That’s because of the Establishment Clause.

I know this wasn’t for me, but I’ll reply anyway: look back up to (&&^&&). You know it isn’t religious.


The government cannot shut down a newspaper simply because it offends someone. That’s because of the freedom of the press.

Are you starting to see how this works?

Yes. That not only is it perfectly fine to have the Commandments on the courthouse steps, it is a celebration of the First Amendment.


The displays of the Ten Commandments in question were by the government, on government property, and with government funds. The government has no place spending money promoting a religious doctrine. You are free to promote the Ten Commandments however you wish -- just not through the apparatus of government.

Actually, not all of them were government funded. Ie: Barrow County Courthouse in Georgia.
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/religion/030830/ten.shtml

It’s not promotion, it’s a display, just like a clock, or the fact that the name of the courthouse is in ENGLISH on the façade. Note that the US has no official language, yet (curiously) I’ve yet to see a courthouse with a façade in Spanish or Dutch.

I may or may not get back to you point-by-point as this debate is pretty pointless. I will make a few quick comments.

As detailed further below, you ignore my primary points in order to make quick squirmishes against minor points. Perhaps you should try again.

Many of your arguments are based on a misreading of a simple sentence of mine. Again, you may wish to try again.

I hereby call shenanigans on your preliminaries. I am not here to debate points of law, which is your career, not mine. I am here to debate concepts and points of view.

Therefore, I reply to your post with this extraneous content edited out.
If you want to debate me, great. I look forward to it. But you’re going to have to debate me as a citizen, not as a lawyer. :)

1. If you do not wish to debate points of law, perhaps you should not argue about the law at all.

2. In other words, you prefer to argue without inconvient facts or context.

3. By ignoring my 4 preliminary points, you ignore later arguments on which they are based.

4. If you wish, take my 4 points (which I will modify into 5) as non-legal arguments:

a. Forget point 1 is a quote from the Supreme Court. Here is a good description of what the Establishment Clause means. Do you disagree? Why?
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.
In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

b. The wall of separation between church and state is not always perfectly maintained. Without going into complicated legal questions it is not possible to explain why some government entanglements with religion have been allowed. (Nor is it necessarily true that they all should have been allowed.) Regardless, the existence of some government displays of religious sentiment do not make case for further displays. Just because the camel's nose is poking into the tent does not require us to admit the camel. To the contrary, why does the existence of multiple existing "recognitions" of religions -- and Christianity in particular -- not satisfy you?

c. The Ten Commandments are inherently religious (emphasis added):

I AM the LORD thy God.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy
God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days
may be long upon the land which the Lord thy
God giveth thee.
Thou shall not kill.
Thou shall not commit adultery.
Thou shall not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife nor his
manservant nor his maidservant, nor his cattle
nor anything that is his neighbor’s.

d. Again, even taken not as a "legal" argument, there are at least 4 reasons (I'm modifying my earlier thought a bit) why the government should not post (or make a statue of) the Ten Commandments in a courthouse:

1. Aids at least one religion
2. Prefers one religion over another
3. Uses tax revenues to teach religion
4. It has a religious purpose, rather than a legitimate state purpose.

d. There is not a "standard" non-sectarian version of the Ten Commandments. There are differences among the Ten Commandments as adopted by Jews and various sects of Christianity. These differences are not minor, but relate to deeply held differences between faiths. (I won't repost my entire argument here, but you have simply ignored this important point.)

IT IS NOT A NON-RELIGIOUS DISPLAY!!!!! :headbang:

Thank you for this. Please note this symbol : (&&^&&). This will be used to reference this piece of your post where you contradict this statement later in your argument.

You based a lot of your arguments on a misreading of this clear sentence. Try reading it again.

I said the Ten Commandments are not a non-religious display. In other words, it is a religious display. (I did not say, as you assume, "it is a non-religious display."

The awkward wording was a response to your assertion that the Ten Commandments was a non-religious display.

Anyway, you now may wish to change many of your arguments.

<SNIP>

Have a nice day.

Have a nice day.

And to you as well. :)

i'm sure someone has brought this up already, but technically only 2/10 are illegal under man's law. #9 is illegal but only under oath. also, the idols commandment is broken everytime you spend money. every dollar and cent that is passed in the US has the face of dead president on it. in a way aren't we worshiping lincoln everytime we spend a five dollar bill. by carving monuments of people, we are paying homage to them, but also we worship them.
if we are to keep the commandments in front of our court houses, then i would also like to see the pillars of islam, and the "commandment" equivalent for all religions practiced in the US. i don't know about you but in my opinion, that's a hell of a lot of stone.