NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering the big posts we've had on this topic in the last few days, this email alert I just got might spark some interest! The link is from my local ABC affiliate, but I'm sure we can find more in-depth coverage on a national news site.

Supreme Court Rules Against Courthouse Ten Commandments Displays

POSTED: 10:10 am EDT June 27, 2005
UPDATED: 10:18 am EDT June 27, 2005

SUPREME COURT -- A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

The 5-4 decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays -- like their own courtroom frieze -- would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

Please refresh this page later for updates.
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/4655125/detail.html?treets=pit&tml=pit_natlbreak&ts=T&tmi=pit_natlbreak_1_09200106272005

I think our Supreme Court has made a clear statement. If the Ten Commandments are displayed in a clear, historical, context they're okay. Maybe as part of a display of the laws of various cultures or such.

If they are displayed in such a way as to imply endorsement, they violate the Constitution. That's the position many of us have taken (and been berated for!) on these forums.

So, discuss...

I believe that religion has no place in public life. Period. I support the Court's decision as the only legitimate reading of the First Amendment.

As a humble servant of the Lord, I agree that government should stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of government. When the two get together, only trouble ensues. I have no problems with the leaders of a nation praying and speaking of Him in public, but I don't want the two to be in bed together. I guess I'm not your average evangelical.

The Ten Commandments were more of an endorsement of Judaism than Christianity anyway...

I understand where the Judges are coming from, but I really don't think having the 10 commandments displayed in a country that is overwhelmingly christian is a very big deal. This whole issue is a waste of political energy that could have been put to better use.

I realize that seperating church and state is important: however, clealry the presence of these 10 commandments is something a lot of people want: and lets face it, it doesn't really hurt anyone.

Interesting, I don't think the ten commandments should be put up in courts, or used, because the commandments regarding religion are outdated, and furthermore, if the court uses the 10 commandments it is a sign of theocracy, it shouldn't happen.

could you make it so the url is NOT the "who posted it"

I agree with the move. In a law court you deal with the law of the nation.

Ihatevacations']could you make it so the url is NOT the "who posted it"

Done, but I'm not sure I understand why.

The government limit Senators, Congressmen, and Supreme Court Justices to 80 years old.

The government limit Senators, Congressmen, and Supreme Court Justices to 80 years old.

Ageism much?

I seriously doubt that the SC would make a ruling that involved what would basicaly be the desicration of a historical site (IE: The walls of their courtroom), that would bring the preservationists down on them, and theyre even worse than the hippies.
That aside, I agree with them and hope that they dont start taking this to extremes by, for example, taking a whiteout marker to every historical document and removing all refrences to God.

to me, any joining of religion & state is a profoundly backwards idea - harking back to medieval Europe and Republica Christiana and all that shite. statecraft and law should be based on reason and logic, while religion is based on faith and irrational beliefs. hence the two just don't go together for me.
and although religion is a good basis for moraity, that doesn't mean a non-religious state can't be moral - just that you can take the morality bits of religion and leave all the mumbo-jumbo out of the state.

any modern state that allows itself to have, or intentionally has, a link between the state and religion isn't fit to call itself a modern state, imho.
besides religion can be used to justify all sorts of terrible things, and has throughout history. this, with religious fanaticism, at the heart of any state can be a frightening thing :eek:




and just to make things topical *coughcough george bush & the rise of the religious right coughcough*

I believe that religion has no place in public life. Period. I support the Court's decision as the only legitimate reading of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting...

The First Amendment in no way dictates individual states' relationship between religion and state.

Done, but I'm not sure I understand why.
You see these pretty boxes and stuff? Posting the url so that the board doesn't auto shorten screws up the tables, especially for people under 1400xwhatever screen size.

The First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting...

The First Amendment in no way dictates individual states' relationship between religion and state.
It's called incorporation, and involves the 14th Amendment.

It's called incorporation, and involves the 14th Amendment.

Because nowhere in the Constitution does it specify individual states' relationships with religion and government (only the federal government), the 10th Amendment protects the right of states to decide for themselves what their relationship between religion and state is.

Because nowhere in the Constitution does it specify individual states' relationships with religion and government (only the federal government), the 10th Amendment protects the right of states to decide for themselves what their relationship between religion and state is.
Do you even know what the 14th Amendment is?

Do you even know what the 14th Amendment is?

Do you even know what the 10th Amendment is?

Do you even know what the 10th Amendment is?
Yes. I do. Pity it has nothing to do with religion.

Edit: This is the full text of the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yes. I do. Pity it has nothing to do with religion.

Pity. Neither does the 14th Amendment.

Ageism much?

Absolutely. If you're telling me that a goodly proportion of any population over 80 isn't senile/has Parkinsons, I'd say you're in denial.

I mean, really. The Chief Justice has CANCER and is DYING. It's insane that Senator Byrd is still in office when he probably can't pee standing up anymore.

While elders are often full of wisdom, there comes a time when one must hang it up.

Because nowhere in the Constitution does it specify individual states' relationships with religion and government (only the federal government), the 10th Amendment protects the right of states to decide for themselves what their relationship between religion and state is.
The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

However, the 14th Amendment applies constitutional guarantees to the states in the equal protection clause. That means this is no longer a 10th Amendment question, because it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Pity. Neither does the 14th Amendment.
Pity you don't understand what applying the Amendments to the states means.

The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

However, the 14th Amendment applies constitutional guarantees to the states in the equal protection clause. That means this is no longer a 10th Amendment question, because it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

How would displaying the 10 Commandments violate the equal protection clause?

Pity you don't understand what applying the Amendments to the states means.

Pity you can't be civil.

This topic has been done to death, over and over again.

Eventually, Cat Tribe steps in, and has to teach the same class again.

<rant>
PLEASE! IT'S OFFICIAL! THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
</rant>

How would displaying the 10 Commandments violate the equal protection clause?
It's a government endorsement of religion.

Pity. Neither does the 14th Amendment.
Gitlow v New York, discussion over.

How would displaying the 10 Commandments violate the equal protection clause?
Equal protection means that all citizens, including those of the states, are given equal protection of the legal system. The Constitution is part of that legal system. Therefore, the states are held responsible when they violate a Constitutional right - including the separation of Church and State enshrined in the First Amendment.

How would displaying the 10 Commandments violate the equal protection clause?

It doesn't El Caudillo.

It's a government endorsement of religion.

Not really. It's the endorsement of one judge, not the government.

Eventually, Cat Tribe steps in, and has to teach the same class again.
I'm trying to make his life easier and get this over with now.

Edit: Discussing whether that separation is good, however, doesn't fall under the umbrella of your post.

Not really. It's the endorsement of one judge, not the government.
Who is a sworn member of the government, who represents it in his/her decisions. So that judge, acting in his/her official capacity as officer of the (government) court, erected that monument. That's like saying the President isn't accountable to the Constitution because he's one person, not the government.

Ihatevacations']Gitlow v New York, discussion over.
Apparently the Supreme Court no longer holds the opinion given in Gitlow v New York. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York)

Equal protection means that all citizens, including those of the states, are given equal protection of the legal system. The Constitution is part of that legal system. Therefore, the states are held responsible when they violate a Constitutional right - including the separation of Church and State enshrined in the First Amendment.

First Amendment: 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.

Now show me in this amendment that the states can't display the 10 Commandments!

Edit: Discussing whether that separation is good, however, doesn't fall under the umbrella of your post.

The separation is good because who then may decide what will be endorsed or displayed?

Would we all be happy if Sharia was enshrined in our laws and Islamic symbols were all over our courthouses?

Would we all be happy if Scientology was the official state religion?

Hm? Eh? Weren't enough religious wars fought in Europe? Isn't that why some of the original settlers came here?

Why bring back some European idiocy?

Not really. It's the endorsement of one judge, not the government.

Federal Judge=Federal Government I hate to say.

First Amendment: 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.

Now show me in this amendment that the states can't display the 10 Commandments!
It's the 14th Amendment. We've gone over this before.

Apparently the Supreme Court no longer holds the opinion given in Gitlow v New York. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York)
I havn't kept up on what cases do what, some one just point to whatever case says 14th amendment appleis the consitution to the states as well

Ihatevacations']Posting the url so that the board doesn't auto shorten screws up the tables, especially for people under 1400xwhatever screen size.

So I "wanked" the board? Sorry.

The separation is good because who then may decide what will be endorsed or displayed?

Would we all be happy if Sharia was enshrined in our laws and Islamic symbols were all over our courthouses?

Would we all be happy if Scientology was the official state religion?

Hm? Eh? Weren't enough religious wars fought in Europe? Isn't that why some of the original settlers came here?

Why bring back some European idiocy?

Deleuze, it doesn't do me any good to stay on topic, because people don't bother to answer.

It's the 14th Amendment. We've gone over this before.

XIV Amendment:

Section 1 Deals with citizenship

Section 2 Deals Elections

Section 3 Deals with prohibits High Johnny Rebs from being in Congress and the President

Section 4 Deals with the Public Debt

Section 5 states that Congress can enforce it with appropriate legislation

Now where in there are you talking about?

Ihatevacations']I havn't kept up on what cases do what, some one just point to whatever case says 14th amendment appleis the consitution to the states as well
Here's a link that discusses the Incorporation Doctrine. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine)

Incidentally, while the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the state in Gitlow v New York, it also said that the 1st Amendment applies to the states.

You guys win.

Deleuze, it doesn't do me any good to stay on topic, because people don't bother to answer.
Yeah, you're right. I was on another thread at the time. I do agree with you.

As a humble servant of the Lord, I agree that government should stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of government. When the two get together, only trouble ensues. I have no problems with the leaders of a nation praying and speaking of Him in public, but I don't want the two to be in bed together. I guess I'm not your average evangelical.


i agree with you, the Government greats in everthing, even religion, i think the Government needs to stay in there little box, and stay in there, with there EVIL :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

Ihatevacations]
I havn't kept up on what cases do what, some one just point to whatever case says 14th amendment appleis the consitution to the states as well
No, you're right. Gitlow still applies. He misread the article, which said that Gitlow overturned an earlier case.

You guys win.
Thank you :D

The separation is good because who then may decide what will be endorsed or displayed?

Would we all be happy if Sharia was enshrined in our laws and Islamic symbols were all over our courthouses?

Would we all be happy if Scientology was the official state religion?

Hm? Eh? Weren't enough religious wars fought in Europe? Isn't that why some of the original settlers came here?

Why bring back some European idiocy?
Exactly ... thoes in the majority tend to get blinded by the "we are in power now and we got what we want so fuck the rest of you"
Their tune would be compleatly different if they were in the minority
And some of us would then be standing up for THEIR right to practice their religion as they see fit unless it crossed thoes lines

First Amendment: 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.

Now show me in this amendment that the states can't display the 10 Commandments!
The 14th Amendment says the First Amendment applies to the states.

The Ten Commandments is an establishment of religion by creating a symbolic government support for a particular religious belief by endorsing it in a secular place of government.

The 14th Amendment says the First Amendment applies to the states.

The Ten Commandments is an establishment of religion by creating a symbolic government support for a particular religious belief by endorsing it in a secular place of government.

How is it an establishment of Religion. To me, its a set of guidelines that we should live by and that they should be displayed.

Yes it is in the Bible, but ignore the Bible for a second as well as the Tora and think for a brief second. They are a set of guidelines to live by so how is displaying guidelines a constitutional violation?

Thank you :D

You're welcome. :)

A)I'm not so hot at debate

B)I know when to concede defeat ;)

How is it an establishment of Religion. To me, its a set of guidelines that we should live by and that they should be displayed.

Yes it is in the Bible, but ignore the Bible for a second as well as the Tora and think for a brief second. They are a set of guidelines to live by so how is displaying guidelines a constitutional violation?
Because those guidelines come from a religious standpoint. When I see the 10 Commandments (or when anyone else does, for that matter) they think Judaism and Christianity. Because those codes come from their holy book. Further, the reason why we should abide by those codes? Because they were handed down by an almight God. It's impossible to argue that the 10 Commandments aren't religious objects.

How is it an establishment of Religion. To me, its a set of guidelines that we should live by and that they should be displayed.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?
"Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy"?

How is that not religious?!

Because those guidelines come from a religious standpoint.

And I said ignore the religion aspect of it for my question!

When I see the 10 Commandments (or when anyone else does, for that matter) they think Judaism and Christianity.

True to form but your not answering my question.

Because those codes come from their holy book.

Way to state the obvious but your still not answering my question.

Further, the reason why we should abide by those codes? Because they were handed down by an almight God. It's impossible to argue that the 10 Commandments aren't religious objects.

I'll state it again! IGNORE that its from the Bible and handed down by God rhetoric for a moment and think with that brain of yours.

How is displaying GUIDELINES a violation of the US Constitution?

*snip*
You missed my argument. These guidelines are inseparable from their religious context, especially if you read the First and Second ones. It is a religious artifact. You can't separate something from its context and then say it's not a religious thing. It's like you're saying "Ignore that the Bible is a religious document. Wouldn't it be a great way to run a government?" YOU CANNOT DO THAT. IT IS A RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT.

Exactly ... thoes in the majority tend to get blinded by the "we are in power now and we got what we want so fuck the rest of you"
Their tune would be compleatly different if they were in the minority
And some of us would then be standing up for THEIR right to practice their religion as they see fit unless it crossed thoes lines

I'm in the majority, and I'm a Pentacostal Christian, and the last thing I want involved in religion is the government.

They have a tendency to screw up everything they touch - economy, war, you name it - regardless of party or political spectrum.

So No Government Involvement In Religion, including indirect signs of favoritism, etc. Please!

I'm in the majority, and I'm a Pentacostal Christian, and the last thing I want involved in religion is the government.

They have a tendency to screw up everything they touch - economy, war, you name it - regardless of party or political spectrum.

So No Government Involvement In Religion, including indirect signs of favoritism, etc. Please!
Sorry I did not mean to make it sound like “all” in majority just that there seems to be a strong trend in any majority to act like that

You missed my argument. These guidelines are inseparable from their religious context, especially if you read the First and Second ones. It is a religious artifact. You can't separate something from its context and then say it's not a religious thing. It's like you're saying "Ignore that the Bible is a religious document. Wouldn't it be a great way to run a government?" YOU CANNOT DO THAT. IT IS A RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT.

*shrugs*

I guess no one wants to see another side to this so I guess I'll just take my leave. Apparently people do not understand that the ten commandments are GUIDELINES to live by and very good guidelines too. Since no one wants to hear it, I'm out of here.

*shrugs*

I guess no one wants to see another side to this so I guess I'll just take my leave. Apparently people do not understand that the ten commandments are GUIDELINES to live by and very good guidelines too. Since no one wants to hear it, I'm out of here.
It's you that doesn't want to listen to the other side. The 10 Commandments are explicitly religious. It doesn't get more so than "I am the Lord your God; you shall have no God other than Me." The other commandments may be good life advice, but this one on its own disqualifies the whole thing from being placed on display. Not to mention the other explicitly religious commandments.

You also can't separate it from its context. That's above.

*shrugs*

I guess no one wants to see another side to this so I guess I'll just take my leave. Apparently people do not understand that the ten commandments are GUIDELINES to live by and very good guidelines too. Since no one wants to hear it, I'm out of here.
Good to some not all of us ... they do a fairly good job at the "no harm" except for the coveting part (you can want all you like but dont tuch)

At least from the legal perspective

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?
"Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy"?

How is that not religious?!

With a little creative interpretation (like what SCOTUS did with the property decision):

* Don't do too much smack.
* Rest one day a week.

:)

This topic has been done to death, over and over again.

Eventually, Cat Tribe steps in, and has to teach the same class again.

<rant>
PLEASE! IT'S OFFICIAL! THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
</rant>

:D

School will soon be in session. ;) :D

*shrugs*

I guess no one wants to see another side to this so I guess I'll just take my leave. Apparently people do not understand that the ten commandments are GUIDELINES to live by and very good guidelines too. Since no one wants to hear it, I'm out of here.
They are EXCELLENT guidelines to live by IF, AND ONLY IF, you are a christian or a jew. The 10 commandments are supposedly the law from God, therefore they are inherently religious, no matter how much bullshit you want to throw around that they are secular guidelines for life

School will soon be in session. ;) :D

Shouldn't this latest decision be an easy thing to point to so that you don't even have to argue much. ;)

You're welcome. :)

A)I'm not so hot at debate

B)I know when to concede defeat ;)


No worries. ;)

If you ask the Cat-Tribe nicely he can give you a real good lesson in the case history of the SCOTUS.

*shrugs*

I guess no one wants to see another side to this so I guess I'll just take my leave. Apparently people do not understand that the ten commandments are GUIDELINES to live by and very good guidelines too. Since no one wants to hear it, I'm out of here.

Said the kettle to the pot.

Corneliu, you have made the same statements over and over and over and over and over and over....

People like the Cat-Tribe have shown they are wrong and yet you continue to make the same statements.

The question is not if they are good guidlines. It's about keeping the goverment neutral on Religion. The FF didn't want to see Europes Religious wars here.

El Caudillo: Thank you for your gracious concession. I repeat some of your posts here only because (a) they do reflect a common misunderstanding and (b) Corny has decided to continue the argument.

Corny: You can argue whether the recent Supreme Court decisions were correct (although your arguments so far make clear you've read neither one) and/or whether display of the 10 Commandments is constitutional (depends on the context, says the Court). But to argue the First Amendment does not apply to the states is simply ridiculous. I thought you claimed to have a "firm grasp" of constitutional law.

The First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting...

The First Amendment in no way dictates individual states' relationship between religion and state.

Because nowhere in the Constitution does it specify individual states' relationships with religion and government (only the federal government), the 10th Amendment protects the right of states to decide for themselves what their relationship between religion and state is.

How would displaying the 10 Commandments violate the equal protection clause?It doesn't El Caudillo.

XIV Amendment:

Section 1 Deals with citizenship

Section 2 Deals Elections

Section 3 Deals with prohibits High Johnny Rebs from being in Congress and the President

Section 4 Deals with the Public Debt

Section 5 states that Congress can enforce it with appropriate legislation

Now where in there are you talking about?

@#$@% jolt ate my first response. I've gone to the trouble to recreate it in order to put the final nails in this coffin.

None of the provisions of the original Bill of Rights applied to the states.

This changed when we amended (and thereby changed) the Constitution in 1868 by adopting the Fourteenth Amendment. (Regardless of the dubious relevance of the 10th Amendment, it would be overridden by the 14th. ;) )

Amendment XIV, Section 1 reads (emphasis added):

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

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment has long been held by the Supreme Court to place substantive, as well as procedural limits, on the states' infringement of "liberty." (Don't make me argue why this is so.) That the Due Process Clause protects substantive fundamental liberties has essentially been accepted universally in the history of the Court. And all of the current members of the Court accept this premise.

Although the Court debated which (or if all) provisions of the Bill of Rights were fundamental liberties and apply to the states, the issue has been long settled that at least some provisions of the Bill of Rights are incorporated within the protections of the 14th Amendment. This is no longer a matter of debate.

Here are links explaining incorporation further:
Incorporation (Bill of Rights) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights))
The Incorporation Debate (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm)
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights (http://classes.lls.edu/spring2005/conlaw2-manheim/charts/incorporation.pdf)
From the NRA: The Bill Of Rights And The States (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23)

As to the incorporation of the First Amendment religion clauses, that has been long settled and is also no longer debated by the Court. Here are the most relevant cases:

Cantwell v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=310&invol=296), 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (“We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws.”) (footnote omitted)

Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1), 330 U.S. 1, 8 (1947) (“The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, commands that a state ‘shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .’,”).

McCollum v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=333&invol=203), 333 U.S. 203, 211 (1948) (“[Respondents] argue that historically the First Amendment was intended to forbid only government preference of one religion over another, not an impartial governmental assistance of all religions. In addition they ask that we distinguish or overrule our holding in the Everson case that the Fourteenth Amendment made the ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment applicable as a prohibition against the States. After giving full consideration to the arguments presented we are unable to accept either of these contentions.”)

The Ten Commandments are the laws of the land, so sayeth the Lord. Therefore, they are mine as well. Hopefully, we will soon get 5 true Christian Supreme Court Justices on the bench, and then let's see if most of you will be as happy as you seem at present. Let's see who's right and who's wrong in the end. Praise GOD allmighty!

Ihatevacations']They are EXCELLENT guidelines to live by IF, AND ONLY IF, you are a christian or a jew.

This is utter nonsense! These guidelines are good for everyone and I mean everyone regardless of religion.

This is utter nonsense! These guidelines are good for everyone and I mean everyone regardless of religion.
Commandment 1: I, the Lord, am your God, you shall no other Gods before Me.
Commandment 2: You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Commandment 3: You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.
Commandment 4: Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy.


sounds like poor and bigoted guidelines for: muslims, hindus, shintoists, atheists, buddhists, wiccans, nonsense religion idiots, etc etc

I believe that religion has no place in public life. Period. I support the Court's decision as the only legitimate reading of the First Amendment.

Court would rule against you. Free-exercize clause. You don't understand the courts rulling...

Court would rule against you. Free-exercize clause. You don't understand the courts rulling...
That was an opinion, not a constitutional argument. I don't think that religion has a place in public life. Certain reading of the Constitution disagree. Not only that, but free exercise doesn't allow someone to impose their religion on me. In fact, that violates the free-exercise clause. So, you need to read my subsequent posts more carefully. And learn how to use spell check.

The Ten Commandments are the laws of the land, so sayeth the Lord. Therefore, they are mine as well. Hopefully, we will soon get 5 true Christian Supreme Court Justices on the bench, and then let's see if most of you will be as happy as you seem at present. Let's see who's right and who's wrong in the end. Praise GOD allmighty!

*looks carefully at Arnburg's head.. starts fiddling with switches*

Com'on..

*digs a little deeper, shuffling hair around*

I know you're in there..

*finally locates a switch and turns it on*

*Click- BZZZRRRRRRRRR (Nice little hum)*

Ahhh good.. I knew the power switch to your brain was in there somewhere.

Now.. Open your bible, and read it again.

Yeah.. That part right there.. The Give Caeser his due?
Thats the one.
The 'Follow the laws of the land as long as they do not conflict with the laws of god'. That part too.

Gee.. Seems he makes a pretty damn quick seperation of his laws and the lands doesn't it?

Basically, stay the hell out of religion, only follow those laws that agree with my laws.

Oh yeah.. And while you're at it..

Judgement is mine, leave them alone, I'll deal with it. I'm *GOD* remember.

*looks at Arnburg's head, sees the blank fanatic look and realizes the switch went off again*

Oh.. No battery.. Nevermind.

That was an opinion, not a constitutional argument. I don't think that religion has a place in public life. Certain reading of the Constitution disagree.

"Reading" it in its native language automatically disagrees. Because it does not impose a limit on people's individual free exercize; public or private.


Not only that, but free exercise doesn't allow someone to impose their religion on me. In fact, that violates the free-exercise clause.

The only way to impose constitutionally, is by law. Personal exercize (even in public) is not an imposition. If you think it is, you've got a serious problem that will make it impossible for you to function rightly in a free-society, where others besides yourself have rights.

The Ten Commandments are the laws of the land, so sayeth the Lord. Therefore, they are mine as well. Hopefully, we will soon get 5 true Christian Supreme Court Justices on the bench, and then let's see if most of you will be as happy as you seem at present. Let's see who's right and who's wrong in the end. Praise GOD allmighty!

You're kidding right? Please tell me you're kidding.

I'm a Christian. I try to live by the Ten Commandments, but I'd never under any circumstances want to live in a theocracy. I live by the rules of my Christian life. Those rules don't need to be the laws of my country; as long as the laws of my country don't force me to renounce my beliefs, I can be a Christian and live in a country whose laws don't exactly duplicate my Christian law.


***********
Edit: curtsies to Faradawn. Well said.

The Ten Commandments are the laws of the land, so sayeth the Lord. Therefore, they are mine as well. Hopefully, we will soon get 5 true Christian Supreme Court Justices on the bench, and then let's see if most of you will be as happy as you seem at present. Let's see who's right and who's wrong in the end. Praise GOD allmighty!

The Constitution of the United States of America disagrees with you...


From Article VI:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.."