Supreme Court/Ten Commandments Case

[shuamort]

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!

Yes, but democracy should be more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

 

[anomaly]

Yes, but democracy should be more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

But if it is a buliding owned by the state, shouldn't the state (which is still controlled by its people, right?) decide what's on it? I mean, I don't really care what Kentucky or Texas want to do. I'm not sure if I exactly responded correctly, though, so perhaps tell me what you were trying to say.

 

[shuamort]

But if it is a buliding owned by the state, shouldn't the state (which is still controlled by its people, right?) decide what's on it? I mean, I don't really care what Kentucky or Texas want to do. I'm not sure if I exactly responded correctly, though, so perhaps tell me what you were trying to say.

This is where the wisdom of the founding fathers come into play. The saying "democracy should mean more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner" means that even though everyone gets a vote on dinner, the lamb is going to get screwed and eaten as she's in the minority. The founding fathers realized that the will of the majority isn't always best and as such, set the government up as a Constitutional Republic. This means that the whims of the majority cannot supercede the plan of the government without a lot of work. This could easily get into a Jeffersonian v. Hamiltonian debate when it comes to what Kentucky or Texas want to do, but the onus is really due to the US Constitution first and a state's constitution second.

 

[Squawker]

Here is an update.

While one lower court found the Texas display to be predominantly nonreligious because it was one of 17 monuments in a 22-acre park, another court struck down the Kentucky displays as lacking a "secular purpose." Kentucky's modification of the display was a "sham" for the religious intent behind it, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Arguing against a strict wall between church and state, Solicitor General Clement said, "The Ten Commandments have an undeniable religious significance, but they also have a secular significance as a source of the law, a code of the law and a well-recognized historical symbol of the law."
David Friedman, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who is challenging the courthouse displays in Kentucky, countered: "An assertion that the Ten Commandments is THE source, THE foundation of our legal system ... that is simply wrapping the Ten Commandments in the flag, and that's endorsement."
The Supreme Court's frieze depicts Moses as well as 17 other figures including Hammurabi, Confucius, Napoleon and Chief Justice John Marshall.

I wonder how the ACLU thinks we have become a civilized society. Perhaps we should adopt the laws of the Taliban and go back to stoning women for adultery.
Source

 

[Pacridge]

Here is an update.

I wonder how the ACLU thinks we have become a civilized society. Perhaps we should adopt the laws of the Taliban and go back to stoning women for adultery.
Source

How does any of that equate to calling for stoning anyone?

 

[Squawker]

How does any of that equate to calling for stoning anyone?

The ACLU was making the case that if we took our laws from the Ten Commandments we were wrapping the flag around it. I wondered what laws they thought we should use. I was being sarcastic.

 

[shuamort]

The ACLU was making the case that if we took our laws from the Ten Commandments we were wrapping the flag around it. I wondered what laws they thought we should use. I was being sarcastic.

The problem is, is that many people, for whatever reason, think that religion is the only source for morality, mores, and laws. And that's extremely problematic when it comes to real-life morality as has been pointed out by your using "stoning" as an example. Morality can't happen when it's based on a vacuum of time when society is evolving.

Of course, it should be said that stoning isn't just a Muslim thang. It's also a Judeo-Christian thing too:
Deuteronomy 22:13-29
"If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones"

Deuteronomy 13:6-11
"you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, "

Deuteronomy 17:1-7
then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones.

Leviticus 24:10-16
"Bring out of the camp him who cursed; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And say to the people of Israel, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him;

Leviticus 24:23
So Moses spoke to the people of Israel; and they brought him who had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. Thus the people of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.

John 10:25-40
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Then of course, this happened which stopped it all for the Christians, hmm, can the Jewish people still do it tho?:

John 8: 1-11
Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."

 

[Naughty Nurse]

The problem is, is that many people, for whatever reason, think that religion is the only source for morality, mores, and laws. And that's extremely problematic when it comes to real-life morality as has been pointed out by your using "stoning" as an example. Morality can't happen when it's based on a vacuum of time when society is evolving.

Thanks, shuamort. Beautifully said.

Then of course, this happened which stopped it all for the Christians, hmm, can the Jewish people still do it tho?:

John 8: 1-11
Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."

The Christian Right is still fond of throwing its metaphorical stones. Do these people consider themselves to be without sin?

 

[Squawker]

The US would have to change the laws to make stoning legal -- that would be government forcing religious beliefs on someone. The laws in the ten commandments are not followed in full either. There is no law about coveting that is inforced. Finding the Ten Commandments a US religious policy is a stretch.

 

[shuamort]

The US would have to change the laws to make stoning legal -- that would be government forcing religious beliefs on someone. The laws in the ten commandments are not followed in full either. There is no law about coveting that is inforced. Finding the Ten Commandments a US religious policy is a stretch.

US Law? Not too much, 2.5 of the amendments are enforced on a federal level (the half is bearing false witness, which isn't illegal in everyday life but is while under oath). However, some states do have adultery as illegal. Virginia considers is a class 4 misdemeanor while Wisconsin actually considers it a class 1 felony.

 

[ShamMol]

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.

Blind ignorance of the government...are you kidding me?

If I remember correctly, something like 75% of those in governemtn right now are protestant or christian, its probably more. That is soemthing right there. Both consider the 10 commandments their moral backbone...well, that sure as hell ain't diversity...

 

[Schweddy]

Blind ignorance of the government...are you kidding me?

If I remember correctly, something like 75% of those in governemtn right now are protestant or christian, its probably more. That is soemthing right there. Both consider the 10 commandments their moral backbone...well, that sure as hell ain't diversity...

*newsflash* there are many many different types of Christians. To name a very few...Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Catholic, Church of Ladder day Saints, Church of Christ, Southern Baptist, Church of the Gospels, and "non-denominational". I believe that is what Jefferson was referring to. Building a wall so that the govn't doesn't descriminate or sponsor a Baptist or Catholic organization for instance.

Back then... the differences were either hated or distinguished amoung the general Gov't leaders. Practically all of them were religious. Now it has become "IF one is Christian"... it used to be "IF one is of Puritan faith or IF one is of the Luthern faith".

Either in this thread or another we can see that Jefferson had his OWN interpetation of the gospels (I think it was posted by Shaumort). TJ believed no-one sould be discounted for having thier own interpetation.

 

[Squawker]

In the court argument Mr Chemerinsky says,

“Imagine the Muslim or the Buddist who walks into the State Supreme Court to have his or her cause heard. That person will see this monument and realize it’s not his or her government.”

Justice Scalia said,

“We’re a tolerant society religiously, but just as the majority has to be tolerant of minority views in the matters of religion, it seems to me the minority has to be tolerant of the majority’s ability to express it’s belief that government comes from God, which is what this is all about. Turn your eyes away if it is such a big deal to you.

I agree with that. Tolerance isn’t a one way street. The majority always have to be the ones to bend to the minority views. The minority never seem to be tolerant of other peoples views.
Source

 

[YamiB.]

I agree with that. Tolerance isn’t a one way street. The majority always have to be the ones to bend to the minority views. The minority never seem to be tolerant of other peoples views.
Source

Being the majority religion should not allow them special treatment from the goverment. If the Ten Commandments are up at a court that is an endorsement of Abrahamic religions by our goverment and special treatment. If they're not there that's not special treatment for the minority religions, they would have to have things endorsing their own religions for that. The only way to make it equal would be to have something from every religion or nothing from any religion.

 

[FredFlash]

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.

If you change the word "religion" to "a state church" then you wind up with nothing but the right to freely exercise a state church. That is an absurdity.

The framers believed in the right to the free exericse of religion according to the dictates of conscience. The no establishment clause was to protect that right.

If you want to protect something from the government, you make that thing completly "off limits" to the government. The no establishment clause was intended to exempt religion from the congnizance of the government and to leave the religion of the people as free as the air they breathe from government influence.

FVF

 

[mpg]

I don't think that it's a good idea to display The Ten Commandments on government property. I believe in strict separation of church and state, but it's not required by the Constitution. Those who claim that it's unconstitutional are worse than the people who want to display it. If you live in the town or state where it's being done, then go ahead and protest if you want, but if you live somewhere else, then MYOB.

 

[tecoyah]

The only way to make it equal would be to have something from every religion or nothing from any religion.

That right there.....Says it all, and should effectively end this debate.

But it Wont.

 

[FredFlash]

I don't think that it's a good idea to display The Ten Commandments on government property. I believe in strict separation of church and state, but it's not required by the Constitution. Those who claim that it's unconstitutional are worse than the people who want to display it. If you live in the town or state where it's being done, then go ahead and protest if you want, but if you live somewhere else, then MYOB.

Do you believe the framers intended for the government to have the power to give us advice regarding what God we worship, whether we make graven images and bow down to them, and whether we keep the Sabbath?

Does your concept of a strict separation of church and state include a government with the authority to make recommendations regarding matters of religon?

Can you show me where one of the framers ever used his authority as an officer of the U. S. Government to advise the people to obey the Ten Commandments?

FVF

 

[mpg]

Do you believe the framers intended for the government to have the power to give us advice regarding what God we worship, whether we make graven images and bow down to them, and whether we keep the Sabbath?

Does your concept of a strict separation of church and state include a government with the authority to make recommendations regarding matters of religon?

Can you show me where one of the framers ever used his authority as an officer of the U. S. Government to advise the people to obey the Ten Commandments?

FVF

no

no

no

What does "FVF" mean?

Are you trying to agree with me or disagree with me?

 

[FredFlash]

no

no

no

What does "FVF" mean?

Are you trying to agree with me or disagree with me?

FVF = Fred Von Flash

I disagree with the view that those who claim that it's unconstitutional are worse than the people who want to display it. It was with a kiss that Judas betrayed his divine Master; and we should all be admonished -- no matter what our faith may be -- that the rights of conscience cannot be so successfully assailed as under the pretext of holiness.

FVF

 

[Indy]

I agree with that. Tolerance isn’t a one way street. The majority always have to be the ones to bend to the minority views. The minority never seem to be tolerant of other peoples views.
Source

Excatly, the majority of Americans want a separation of church and state and its the minority of republicans that want them to be fused. Thanks for making our point for us Squawker!

 

[FredFlash]

Let us leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not to the bidding of the State.

 

[earthworm]

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!

To me, your input is most valuable in this matter, Nurse - we can learn much from foreign governments and people.. During the 1700s we tried not to make the same mistakes the Europeans made - but the learning process is continual, when it stops, a nation dies.....
IMO, there is no separation of church and state, and never was.
Our constitution is set up to more or less keep things in balance...

In the 18th century, the atheist was smart enough to stay underground, now, things are less repressive, and they are surfacing..and complaining about little meaningless things - that hurt no one....

 

[FredFlash]

there is no separation of church and state

Why did James Madison say there was?

What was it when the First U. S. Congress did not allow prayer during their offical daily sessions?

and never was

What was it when Thomas Jefferson refused to issue religious recommendation under the authority of his office; and the next tweleve Presidents did the same?

Our constitution is set up to more or less keep things in balance...

Keep what in balance? There is no such thing as just a little trespass upon the authority of Christ.

In the 18th century, the atheist was smart enough to stay underground, now, things are less repressive, and they are surfacing..and complaining about little meaningless things - that hurt no one....and never was

What little meaningless things - that hurt no one?

FVF

 

[disneydude]

Why is it so hard to leave religion to churches and governing to government.

I myself am Christian and I support anyone's right to free exercise of religion.

But, what I cannot understand is Why these radical so called "Christians" seek to impose religion into government. What purpose does it serve? I think people who support things like crucifixes on county seals and 10 commandment monuments in courthouses need to stand back and give a good argument for what purpose they serve there other than to impose christian beliefs into government.

Once again, these movements are led by people who claim to be "Christian" but really embody very little of the humility and compassion for others that the real man stood for. They are modern day Pharisees who are nothing more than hypocrites.