That doesn't mean it was a bad idea either. The founders endorsed having church services in the Capitol. Their intent behind the separation of church and state was not that all religion must be eradicated from public buildings and government. It was set in place to prevent laws based solely on religion and having religion take over the government.
How does that establish a religion? Again, it is not establishing Christianity as a state religion to allow the 10 Commandments in the courthouse. I'm sure they had messages preached in the Capitol talking about the 10 Commandments and having the Christian God as the one true God. My point is that the clause was not written to eradicate religion, it was written to separate religion from government policy. These men wrote that clause having suffered under European religious persecution and the poison of having a state religion/church.
Shouldn't we go back to the Constitution regarding constitutional matters though? The power of the judicial branch has increased, but their power is supposed to be based on the Constitution. Personally I would support preventing the judicial branch from having activist and politically motivated judges/rulings. But regardless, the Constitution is what they are to rule by. Looking at history we can see that separation of church and state was never intended to mean a total eradication of all things religious from public property. It was a clause protecting our country from becoming a theocracy or having theocratic laws.
Read the constitution and federalist papers, the states have all rights not granted to the federal, so "Not as long as they are part of the U.S.A." is a weak argument.
And as long as the laws based upon these things do not violate the constitution then there is no argument on your part. A display is NOT an establishment of religion, and the establishment clause was based upon the concept of never having a state run church(like the Anglican), so........ What's your point again?
Actually, no the constitution does not, considering that whole part about religious expression not being. Your appeal to the court is weak, since another court can easily reverse that. I guess you missed a very key point in the first amendment so I'll post it here and bold the crucial part to the argument.
So you can see that both of my key arguments were based upon the rights of individual citizens to display their tenets and it's up to the local to approve or dissaprove, and it's also the right of other locals to protest. So what's the problem?
No they are not. They are quite protected, laws establishing a religion as the only option OR laws based favorably towards a singular religion without secular benefit are not constitutional.
It's not even close to that arbitrary.
Nope, it says what it says. You are taking the position of semantics used broadly and incorrectly throughout the 1900's. The founders disagree with you, and so does the very plain english of the constitution. Rather than actually address the logic you decide to attack the message. I expect nothing less from you though.
Which does not address my point of the government allowing privately funded displays. The govenment is NOT paying for them, the land IS public but owned BY the individual community which means that they have a) The right to religious expression is upheld b) An official religion has NOT been established only that expression has been upheld and c) The right to assemble HAS also been upheld.
AAAANNNNND no one said they were, only that the majority may predate the actual governance of the locality, not uncommon in many areas of the U.S. and they have a private right to representation, even in the public square. What part of that don't people understand?
You are correct that it is all encompassing, you are not correct on applicable concepts of it.
eace
I enjoyed it as well, thought it was a very interesting topic. On the surface it's easy for people to either take the right to religious expression for granted or to just accept the arguments as is but it's such a deceptively complex topic that it begs to be debated.To the extent that anyone cares, I think this debate has been great! Hasn't changed my opinion a ton, but has certainly helped me refine it.
It seems to me that a reasonable case can be made that artistic representations of the 10 commandments can be squared with the First Amendment, but I maintain that displays which feature the actual language in the commandments go too far. Just as verses of the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita that expressly concerned lawmaking, as the commandments do, would be.
Indeed, I think that insisting on a display that featured the exact words of the commandments, rather than a simple representation of them, betrays the intent of those who erect such displays.
But again, great debate.
Let's not be silly, we all know who wants those slabs in our courthouses.
