• 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

Batman said:
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.

Religion involved in government is government involved in religion. To the same degree.
 
Dear Batman:

You will find the separation of church and state in the Constitution right where James Madison said it is. Have you ever heard of James Madison?

The government is not to impose or even influence in any manner whatsoever religion (The duty which we owe to our Creator). I will take occasion to express my high admiration and unqualified approbation of that inestimable principle established in the Constitution—of leaving the religion of the people as free as the air the breathe from government influence.

A government displaying commandments of a religious nature, with the intent to advise the people that they should obey them, is an arrogant infringement upon the free exercise of religion, an establishment by civil authority of duties which are owed to the Creator, and impious and sinful trespasses upon the authority of Almighty God.

The duty which we owe to our Creator should have no influence whatsoever on our government because the government has no authority at all over those matters. For example: A Senator's opinions and actions regarding prayer should have no effect on the government because it should never be involved in matters of prayer or any matter of religon, except to stay out of that area - because it belongs to God alone.

Only a fool, a Federalist, a demon worshipper or a Calvinist would be foolish enough to trespass upon the prerogatives of Almighty God. Benjamin Jefferson Phlash.

FVF
 
FredFlash said:
Dear Batman:

You will find the separation of church and state in the Constitution right where James Madison said it is. Have you ever heard of James Madison?

The government is not to impose or even influence in any manner whatsoever religion (The duty which we owe to our Creator). I will take occasion to express my high admiration and unqualified approbation of that inestimable principle established in the Constitution—of leaving the religion of the people as free as the air the breathe from government influence.

A government displaying commandments of a religious nature, with the intent to advise the people that they should obey them, is an arrogant infringement upon the free exercise of religion, an establishment by civil authority of duties which are owed to the Creator, and impious and sinful trespasses upon the authority of Almighty God.

The duty which we owe to our Creator should have no influence whatsoever on our government because the government has no authority at all over those matters. For example: A Senator's opinions and actions regarding prayer should have no effect on the government because it should never be involved in matters of prayer or any matter of religon, except to stay out of that area - because it belongs to God alone.

Only a fool, a Federalist, a demon worshipper or a Calvinist would be foolish enough to trespass upon the prerogatives of Almighty God. Benjamin Jefferson Phlash.

FVF
Your responding to someone who posted his comments on this thread over a year ago...

Just thought you should know...
 
earthworm said:
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....

? I thought you said that their input was the most valuable? But your whole post is directly against what they were saying. Please explain.
 
When a Supreme Court justice (or any judge for that matter) places their hand on the bible they pledge to uphold the Constitution, they don't pledge to uphold the Bible. So, therein lies the problem and the solution - in other words, not every reference to God/Religion is a violation of the Constitution, however, when it becomes doctrine rather than a historical reference we cross the line of Church/State. The problem is not with having references to God/Religion, the problem lies with right-wing hypocrites trying to force their doctrine onto the masses.
 
disneydude said:
When a Supreme Court justice (or any judge for that matter) places their hand on the bible they pledge to uphold the Constitution, they don't pledge to uphold the Bible. So, therein lies the problem and the solution - in other words, not every reference to God/Religion is a violation of the Constitution, however, when it becomes doctrine rather than a historical reference we cross the line of Church/State. The problem is not with having references to God/Religion, the problem lies with right-wing hypocrites trying to force their doctrine onto the masses.

Yep, that says it all. How abou this, if you want GOD to be shown in the courthouses, then why not just have a 10 foot statue of the letters G-O-D that way you won't be offending any one religeon and you won't be endorsing one either. But it does still leave out the aethiests and miltitheistic religeons. You can't please everybody so why try? Just leave the stupid statue out of the courthouse.
 
The separation clause is clearly intended to make it so that no government can force any particular religion down the throats of its citizens. Freedom of religion was why many came here from Europe in the first place, but what was the first thing they did? Put in the stocks those who would not worship according to how they saw fit. These kinds of abuses were what our forefathers were addressing when they created the establishment clause. On the other hand, putting up a statue commemorating God is not what our forefathers were referring to. Nobody is being forced to worship those statues, are they?

Also, how about what is on our money? - "In God We Trust". The statues and the phrases on our money have nothing to do with the reason our forefathers created the establishment clause, and since, in my honest opinion, the establishment clause does not apply in this case, then based on the 10th Amendment, it would be up to the individual states and localities to determine what symbols they want on their property.
 
danarhea said:
The separation clause is clearly intended to make it so that no government can force any particular religion down the throats of its citizens. Freedom of religion was why many came here from Europe in the first place, but what was the first thing they did? Put in the stocks those who would not worship according to how they saw fit. These kinds of abuses were what our forefathers were addressing when they created the establishment clause. On the other hand, putting up a statue commemorating God is not what our forefathers were referring to. Nobody is being forced to worship those statues, are they?

Also, how about what is on our money? - "In God We Trust". The statues and the phrases on our money have nothing to do with the reason our forefathers created the establishment clause, and since, in my honest opinion, the establishment clause does not apply in this case, then based on the 10th Amendment, it would be up to the individual states and localities to determine what symbols they want on their property.

I disagree with you on this one. Lately, meaning the last 75 years or so, there have been a lot of additions of religious phrases and symbols into taxpayer venues. The 'In God We Trust' wasn't mandated on money until the 1950's, the national motto was 'E Pluribus Unum' until hijacked, and both of those changes were effected by laws enacted by Congress. Not legal. Roy Moore installed his monument at his courthouse more recently, it was illegal and was removed. We have to be diligent against those who would usurp our institutions for their purposes.

There's plenty of religion in our government that is legal. Lots of religious people who show their faith vocally, carry their Bible or Torah publicly, end speeches with 'God Bless America.' These and many other practices are perfectly fine, but the installation of religious symbols or scripture in government buildings is over the line, except maybe in certain instances, like the depictions in the Supreme Court building of many 'lawgivers,' which include some religious figures in the mix. This art has a secular purpose.
 
The Separation of Church and State is found in the fact that authority over religion is not an enumerated power of the central government.

James Madison
 
Batman said:
Show me in the constitution where it says 'separation 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 agree with Batmen, his argument makes sense.
Back 200 years ago we had no openly practicing Islamics nor atheists, and the Constitution was written for those times - which makes sense..
We are supposed to be a democracy with majority rule.
If 75%(or even 51%) of the people want, or do not object to a Koran being displayed on public property, then it should be displayed...What is on public property should be determined by the people willing to participate in the meetings and voting; NOT a few overactive atheists, or their supporters...
 
earthworm said:
I agree with Batmen, his argument makes sense.
Back 200 years ago we had no openly practicing Islamics nor atheists, and the Constitution was written for those times - which makes sense..
We are supposed to be a democracy with majority rule.
If 75%(or even 51%) of the people want, or do not object to a Koran being displayed on public property, then it should be displayed...What is on public property should be determined by the people willing to participate in the meetings and voting; NOT a few overactive atheists, or their supporters...

Funny enough, I'd doubt that 51% would vote in support of ANY religeous icons being displayed in courthouses. The assumption that because you are christian you would want the 10 commandments displayed is false. Its not an aethiest thing or a matter of supporting them, its a matter of americans not wanting a religeous rule and as such are very careful when others try to implant religeon (in any form) into the gov't, especially in places of judgement.
 
Dear Earthworm:

The Right of Conscience is a gift from God. It is not subject to the wishes of the majority. You don't get to challege God's will, and you don't get to vote on the right of conscience.

FVF
 
earthworm said:
I agree with Batmen, his argument makes sense.
Back 200 years ago we had no openly practicing Islamics nor atheists, and the Constitution was written for those times - which makes sense..
We are supposed to be a democracy with majority rule.
If 75%(or even 51%) of the people want, or do not object to a Koran being displayed on public property, then it should be displayed...What is on public property should be determined by the people willing to participate in the meetings and voting; NOT a few overactive atheists, or their supporters...

Here's what a famous thinker was saying in 'those times':

Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations
 
disneydude said:
When a Supreme Court justice (or any judge for that matter) places their hand on the bible they pledge to uphold the Constitution, they don't pledge to uphold the Bible. So, therein lies the problem and the solution - in other words, not every reference to God/Religion is a violation of the Constitution, however, when it becomes doctrine rather than a historical reference we cross the line of Church/State. The problem is not with having references to God/Religion, the problem lies with right-wing hypocrites trying to force their doctrine onto the masses.

How have you been forced to believe Christian doctrine?
 
earthworm said:
I agree with Batmen, his argument makes sense.
Back 200 years ago we had no openly practicing Islamics nor atheists, and the Constitution was written for those times - which makes sense..
We are supposed to be a democracy with majority rule.
If 75%(or even 51%) of the people want, or do not object to a Koran being displayed on public property, then it should be displayed...What is on public property should be determined by the people willing to participate in the meetings and voting; NOT a few overactive atheists, or their supporters...

One of the objectives of the framers was to create a nation where a majority could not impose tyranny on a minority. The principle of the Separation of Church and State is simply that the government cannot be used as a vehicle to compel, promote, or endorse religious beliefs. It’s simply that. A government official, judge, or politician can hold any religious belief that he or she chooses and worship in any way that he or she chooses. However, they cannot use the government to promote or endorse their religious beliefs. A separation of church and state is an absolute necessity in a free society. Never in the history of civilization has marriage of religion and government resulted in a more righteous government. The founding fathers knew that and created a wall between the two.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
One of the objectives of the framers was to create a nation where a majority could not impose tyranny on a minority. The principle of the Separation of Church and State is simply that the government cannot be used as a vehicle to compel, promote, or endorse religious beliefs. It’s simply that. A government official, judge, or politician can hold any religious belief that he or she chooses and worship in any way that he or she chooses. However, they cannot use the government to promote or endorse their religious beliefs. A separation of church and state is an absolute necessity in a free society. Never in the history of civilization has marriage of religion and government resulted in a more righteous government. The founding fathers knew that and created a wall between the two.

I believe it was also the founding fathers intention to make sure there would be no state religion like in England. The liberals have it all wrong. They want government to limit freedom of religous expression, when in fact it was the founding father's intention to keep government out of all expressions of religion.
 
mnpollock said:
Funny enough, I'd doubt that 51% would vote in support of ANY religious icons being displayed in courthouses. The assumption that because you are christian you would want the 10 commandments displayed is false. Its not an aethiest thing or a matter of supporting them, its a matter of americans not wanting a religious rule and as such are very careful when others try to implant religion (in any form) into the gov't, especially in places of judgement.

No proof either way, if it were to be put to a vote in that particular community( the Eagle donated plaque), probably 90% would vote affirative...
How would you know I am Christian and not Agnostic?? This has nothing to do with my position anyway...
True, most Americans do not want "religious rule", nor church involvement in state, or state involvement in church.....
But its only a plaque; has very little to do with any religion specifically , nor any church.
Like it or not, we are a Christian nation(more or less), we were established that way by mostly religious men who knew that a line had to be drawn - that America could not make the same mistake England made long ago....
The plaques hurt no-one, do nothing but sit there quietly, but probably do bother the hyper-sensitive atheist..
Too bad.
 
Another problem for those who wish to remove all references to God is what are they going to do about the Washington Monument? There is a bible buried in the cornerstone. There are a couple prayers on the way up on the walls offered by Christians and on the very top it says "Laus Deo—Latin for “Praise be to God.”

What are you religous police going to do about that?
 
Alias said:
I believe it was also the founding fathers intention to make sure there would be no state religion like in England. The liberals have it all wrong. They want government to limit freedom of religous expression, when in fact it was the founding father's intention to keep government out of all expressions of religion.

How does preventing the use of government as a vehicle to promote, compel or endorse religious beliefs a limit to the freedom of religious expression?
 
vauge said:
Our country was founded on Christian principles. To deny that, is to deny the very existance of the US!!

What founding principles of this country are unique to and indicative of Christianity?

Where is freedom of speech in the Christian Bible?
How about the right to keep and bear arms?
How about freedom of religion, to believe in whatever God you choose?
Where does the Bible lay out a Constitutional Republican form of government?
Trial by jury in there?
Who about Habeous Corpus?

Those are just a couple of the founding principles of this country so start with those. I always here the pro government religion involvment side make the statement you made but never have been able to get anyone to show it.
 
Alias said:
I believe it was also the founding fathers intention to make sure there would be no state religion like in England. The liberals have it all wrong. They want government to limit freedom of religous expression, when in fact it was the founding father's intention to keep government out of all expressions of religion.

And viseversa, they were very aware of what happened in Europe when the church was a very powerful political influence. Faith and politics do not mix, they didn't then they don't now.

And what on earth some religious conservatives want government involved in their religion is beyond me. They have their churches and private property to display anything they want to display and teach anything they want to teach, why would they want government to be involved since invarible anything government gets involved it takes over.
 
Stinger said:
What founding principles of this country are unique to and indicative of Christianity?

Where is freedom of speech in the Christian Bible?
How about the right to keep and bear arms?
How about freedom of religion, to believe in whatever God you choose?
Where does the Bible lay out a Constitutional Republican form of government?
Trial by jury in there?
Who about Habeous Corpus?

Those are just a couple of the founding principles of this country so start with those. I always here the pro government religion involvment side make the statement you made but never have been able to get anyone to show it.

Wow, surprisingly being that its coming from you ;), but I could not agree more.
 
Stinger said:
And viseversa, they were very aware of what happened in Europe when the church was a very powerful political influence. Faith and politics do not mix, they didn't then they don't now.

And what on earth some religious conservatives want government involved in their religion is beyond me. They have their churches and private property to display anything they want to display and teach anything they want to teach, why would they want government to be involved since invarible anything government gets involved it takes over.

Wow, two in a row. I could not agree with you more.
 
Stinger said:
And viseversa, they were very aware of what happened in Europe when the church was a very powerful political influence. Faith and politics do not mix, they didn't then they don't now.

And what on earth some religious conservatives want government involved in their religion is beyond me. They have their churches and private property to display anything they want to display and teach anything they want to teach, why would they want government to be involved since invarible anything government gets involved it takes over.

I consider myself conservative and that isn't what I want. What do you think it is that conservatives want the government involved in? Can you be specific?
 
I don't know about you other atheists/agnostics, but I am praying with all my heart and soul that displaying the ten commandments is deemed perfectly constitutional. If it is, that means we can start collecting money to raise monuments extolling then tenets of the Almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster right alongside it! Just imagine! How far could we push the envelope if we could build monuments to Satan in all His glory? Nothing lewd or vulgar, mind you, but I'm sure we could include a depiction of a couple of virgin sacrifices, and maybe even Satan Himself eating a baby! I'm sure all the Christians advocating monuments of the 10 commandments wouldn't mind.....I mean, just because there's a 40 foot statue of Satan preparing to eat a baby standing on the steps of the state courthouse doesn't mean you have to change your religious beliefs or anything like that, because we could all agree that it would in no way means that the State endorses devil worshiping.
 
Back
Top Bottom