• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Supreme Court/Ten Commandments Case

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here is one to watch.
Full Text

Source
 
I have nothing against someone displaying religious symbols on private property, but they absolutely do not belong on public grounds supported by taxpayers money :naughty , taxpayers who might not subscribe to that particular faith.
 
I have nothing against someone displaying religious symbols on private property, but they absolutely do not belong on public grounds supported by taxpayers money , taxpayers who might not subscribe to that particular faith.
Click to expand...
I don't like paying liberal teachers who preach their views to our kids either, so what's your point again?
 
Last edited:
I for one think that it is a misinterpretation of the Establishment clause to say that the government can not display any religious symbols whatsoever. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" seems to me to say that Congress can't make laws pertaining to state churches. And displaying religious symbols like the Ten Commandments is a far cry from having an established state church (like the Lutheran Church in Sweden, for example, which just split with the government back in 2000).
I know that certain Supreme Court rulings contradict my views, which muddies the water a bit, but I still feel that what I said earlier was the original intent of the Establishment clause.
 
Last edited:
Blue Hobgoblin said:
I have nothing against someone displaying religious symbols on private property, but they absolutely do not belong on public grounds supported by taxpayers money :naughty , taxpayers who might not subscribe to that particular faith.
Click to expand...

As quoted in the article:

The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the Texas monument in 1961 and gave scores of similar monuments to towns across the United States.

Taxpayer money did not pay for this. It was a gift to the town. The town should be able to display it on it's property.
 
Indeed.

Not sure I can add much, but it sure is getting old.

I am offended that your offeneded that I am offeneded that...

The constitution says nothing about being offended of one's religion.
Our country was founded on Christian principles. To deny that, is to deny the very existance of the US!!
 
As your country has, very wisely (and unlike us here in the UK ) separated church and state, you presumably are a multi-faith (including those with no faith) society. So it seems to me to be a backward step having displays of Christianity on public property.


Not actually any of my business, of course, but can't resist putting my two-penneth in!
 
I forget who originally said this, but it was posted somewhere a few months back in "Debate Politics" and hit the nail on the head........

Let's say we have a judge in the U.S. who is of Muslim ancestry, and this judge wants to display a copy of the Koran on public property?

Can you understand how most conservatives would be outraged?

Can you understand why we need to draw the line between church and state?
 

Show me in the constitution where it says 'seperation of church and state.'
It doesn't. The government is not to impose religion. Having a display of commandments or reference to God is not making citizens bow down. The constitution says nothing about the church being unable to be involved with the government.
 

I think the main problems lie with the constitutions ban of sanctioning a religion. By posting Christian doctrines it, if nothing else, apperas that the government is taking sides on the religious issue and siding with Christianity.
 
"What they're really advocating on the other side is a religious cleansing from our history," Shackelford said. "It should be treated with respect as our part of history, not some new form of pornography that has to be banned from our public arena.
Click to expand...
I think this says it quite well. What I find so hypocritical of these atheists, is that they wish to take away the religious freedom of others, which is exactly what freedom of religion is all about.
 

Displaying something with a religious element to it, whether the Ten Commandments or the Koran, is totally different from the government establishing a state religion, like the Church of England or the Lutheran church in Sweden. If I had any objection to displaying the Koran in a court building, it would be that it was an irrelevant item in our nation's founding, unlike the Ten Commandments. And even then it would be a minor issue.
 
Squawker said:
What I find so hypocritical of these atheists, is that they wish to take away the religious freedom of others, which is exactly what freedom of religion is all about.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Squawker, but I think you've got that wrong. The problem, as far as I can see, is that many religious people seem to feel they have a right to dictate how other people should live their lives. If someone has a strong faith, and chooses to live their life according to that faith, and it makes them hapy, then I think that's great. However, as an atheist I have the right to live my life as I choose, and not as someone else would choose for me.

Freedom of religion includes the right to be an atheist.
 
However, as an atheist I have the right to live my life as I choose, and not as someone else would choose for me.
Click to expand...
And I don't? Thank you for your generosity. You think the world should rotate on your axis? What gives you the right to deny me my constitutional right? Some activist jusdge maybe, but not the US Constitution.
 
Squawker said:
And I don't? Thank you for your generosity. You think the world should rotate on your axis? What gives you the right to deny me my constitutional right? Some activist jusdge maybe, but not the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Please take the time to read other people's posts properly before you have the knee-jerk reaction!
 
Dagnabbit, I had a really good and long post that's been gobbled up. Alright, from square one again.

OK, in the US there has been a switch from Separationism to Accomodationism. Here's its timeline:

1788-US Constitution is ratified

1789-Bill of Rights are ratified inclusive of the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

1802-Jefferson, one of the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, sent a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association stating: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

1803-Marbury v Madison. This Supreme Court decision set precedent for judicial review. When you hear about "judicial fiats" or "activist judges" this is where the ability of judges to set these precedents come from. We've had this decision around for over 200 years now which is a loooooong time and one would think that there'd be laws against it if it were so problematic. Ahem.

1947-Everson v Board of Education. This is the first case that used Jefferson's quote establishing a wall of separation between Church and State. The details of case are a bit boring (busing students to a religious school by the gov't or not). Although Jefferson's statement to Danbury was not part of the First Amendment, his intentions were well defined by the letter. As such, his beliefs were used to define the law.

1947-1988-Separationism is used in Supreme Court decisions as the sole route.

1989-County of Allegheny v ACLU. This begins the era that switches from Separationism to Accomodationism. The decision made in this case is really about two separate incedences. The first, a manger scene is placed in a Courthouse. This is deemed to be a violation of church and state. The second, a menorrah and a christmas tree is set outside a city county building, this is deemed to be legal as it is inclusive to more than one religion and as such, doesn't endorse one over the other.

2003-2004-Former Chief Justice Roy Moore further proves the decision of County of Allegheny v ACLU. Moore erects a 2.4 ton monument of the 10 Commandments in the Alabama courthouse and refuses to allow Atheists to erect their own monument there. By his decision, he's creating a space that endorses Christianity and no others. He's subsequently removed from power.

There've been a lot of things that have happened in between all of that... but that would make this post even more inflated than it needs to be.
 
We don’t really know the context of the opinion. He was probably speaking in reference to the religious freedom England didn’t provide, and one that New England would. The Government wasn’t to prohibit religious freedom. It wasn’t until the mid 20th century that his words had any weight at all. Activist judges decided his words meant there should be no morning prayer in the schools. The liberals/Democrats pride themselves on being “progressive”, but I fail to see how that fits in with going back to old English ways.
 

You talk as if the words YOU MUST BELIEVE AND LIVE LIKE THIS is displayed above Scripture in public places. If people feel that way maybe the words are placing conviction in them.
 
I dropped out of history this semester - it proved to be too much.

But, I did get through the first few chapters. The puritans, pilgrams, and lutherans were the first folks that created thier own governments outside of England. The southern colonies did not have small governments - it was money they wanted. They were almost ALL Christian and it was common to be nieghbors with someone that was not of the same 'denomination'.

Therefore, I submit that Jeffererson was really trying to say that Government should not respect any specific religion over another (meaning denominations). If the government "respects" or aids baptist persons - they should respect or aide lutheran persons as well. The government should not side with any specific denomination by giving more grants or entitlements over the other. That wall is really blinder to the specifics of the religion.

?
 
Last edited:

1) The following should give you full context of the Danbury letter and why it's relevant and declaratory to the 1947 Supreme Court Decision.
2)He was speaking to the role of the US in goverment. At the turn of the century, when these were written, the denominations of Christianity were different, and in some cases, extremely different. Danbury was concerned that a specific denomination could gain political control and thus create laws that might go against theirs. Danbury's request to Jefferson was clarification (and to some extent, reassurance) that they would not come into discrimination from their own government.
3)Jefferson's words had weight when he wrote the letter too. To say they don't is revisionist history. (Or just plain hyperbole that they had no weight at all).
4)There's no such thing as an "activist judge". Judges have had ability to interpret law since Marbury v. Madison and if there were a liberal/conservative problem with that, congress could have made a law to stop it anytime in the last 200+ years. Whinging about it now is just making lame duck excuses.
5)Prayer in public school was removed in the 1961 case of Engel v Vitale. The word I bolded is apropos to the debate and cannot be omitted because it is very germane to the discussion. That case happened in NY where a non-denominational prayer in oublic school was a routine ritual. From the decision: We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly incon-sistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessing of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been religious, none of the respondents has denied this and the trial court expressly so found...






Here's the full letter to Danbury:
 
We must also take into account the context of religion at the time.

The idea that it was "a matter between a man and God" was very very new. Up until the Church of England separated, the idea that a man could talk to God directly was preposterous! Not everyone in the new world believed this.

Many of the puritans (which I think Jefferson descended from), believed that one was already chosen before birth. Actions did not matter. There was no "salvation" during this time frame. One was predestined. Therefore acting religiously was not required and of no consequence to them. So it made full sense that one could work in governmental positions without acting like a religious person.

I still concede that he was really referring to blind ignorance from the government to any specific denomination - divercity amoung the government, if you will.
 
Batman said:
The constitution says nothing about the church being unable to be involved with the government.
Click to expand...

Fine...let the church be involved with government, and campaign for particular candidates, just so long as they lose their tax free status, then I'm fine with it.
 
Hoot said:
Fine...let the church be involved with government, and campaign for particular candidates, just so long as they lose their tax free status, then I'm fine with it.
Click to expand...

Okay, apply that to the NAACP too.
But this is interesting:
On the North wall of the Lincoln Memorial the text of Lincoln's second inaugural address appears. It reads in part:

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman"s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Now what?
 
Fine...let the church be involved with government, and campaign for particular candidates, just so long as they lose their tax free status, then I'm fine with it.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the problem up for debate but I would agree with them losing "some" of their tax free status. Jefferson was one man who had an opinion. Activist judges took one mans "opinion" to make it possible to pass laws forbiding the free excessive of religion, which the Congress was prohibited from doing in the Constitution.
 
Perhaps leave it up to the individual state, just like gay marriage should be. That way you religious nuts in the deep 'red' south would get to express your odd religious beliefs, while those in the more sane NE and Pacific coast would get to express their more rational views. Let the people decide!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…