Supreme Court rejects Ten Commandments appeal
 

WOOT!

earlier discussion can be found here

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=22398

moore couldnt get 4 votes in our conservative supreme court. now that's sad! (i'm sure that rehnquest and c.thomas voted to accept this :D ).

today is a great day for the seperation of church and state.

---------

now the question is, whether or not he will comply with the orders of the fed appeals court.

more on that

what is moore gonna do?? the state supreme court doesnt have any militia or police forces and the attorney general is gonna remove it??

this kinda reminds me of the elian gonzales deal where the INS had to scoop in early morning to get the kid. maybe alabama state officals will do that to prevent conflict with the protestors.

The idiots have said they will hold a pray-in to prevent the removal, watching the staute 24/7.

Now, isn't that trespassing or loitering?

If not, somebody should move the entire homeless population of Montgomery into the courthouse as well.


Honestly, this guy should be dis-barred. He is on a personal crusade, wasting taxpayer money over an obviously unconstitutional act. Shit-can the idiot.

I agree with that 100%. :thumbsup:

I don't see how anyone can argue that putting the ten commandments in a public area of a Court House does not violate the 1st.

when many americans beleive that the founding fathers and creators of the constitution were christian (although most facts, including memoirs and letters point to them being diests) and founded the country as a christian country, i can see how people would think it's wrong to remove it. i think a lot of people in this country, especially the more religous christians and people from highly christian areas have the thought "it's okay for people of other religions to live in this here country, but they gots to follow the laws and rules of Big J."


edit: i forgot a few words.

I agree that church should be at church, not at school. You're there to recieve an education, not choose a religion. When you go to church, they don't give you an algebra lesson, so wtf? School is for school. Church is for church.

I also believe that way too big a deal is made of this crap. Who cares, really? Other than to prove a point, what does it matter? People that believe in Creation don't like that Evolution is taught in schools, but it still is. When I was in school, I had no sayso in what was posted on the walls, and I didn't care. What was on the walls didn't mold me as a person; I did.

Nowadays, advertising is everywhere. McDonald's, Pepsi and Burger King advertise on roadsides. When I piss in a urinal I notice the little "say no to drugs" thingy in the bottom. I have a hard time taking something seriously when I'm pissing on it. And now God has billboards in schools.

I have no point other than that things are retarded, and will continue to get more retarded as long as crap like this is an issue.
Take the damn thing down, grow up and move on.

Absolutely correct on this one. Or better yet, perhaps he may want to become a martyr for his self-righteous crusade, and cool his heels in a prison cell for awhile.

i think it may be good for the media to publicly embarrass jackasses like this.

Please learn what "separation of church and state" really means.

It is NOT removing every trace of "god" or "jesus" from our schools and public buildings.

There is nothing about separation of church and state in the constitution. Look it up - see for yourselves.

I see nothing in here about banning the public display of the Ten Commandments on government property. All that I see is a ban on the establishment of a government-sponsored religion, meaning, no official state religion.

then please, tell us what it is.


and in regards to your later post with the quote of the first amendment, by putting the 10 commandments in a court house or other government property, that says "look at us, we're a christian country and thats how we govern ourselves and come up with our laws." it might not be in writing, but that's the message that is sent, that we're a de facto christian nation.

i can see how some artifact with a historic value (like some stone that has been there for the past 100 years) can be allowed to put on there for historical value, but this dude dragged it in the middle of the night after his fellow justices had went home.

also, moore is paying his lawyers through the money he receives from the sale of the tapes he made that shows him putting the stone up in the first place. (which was filmed by a christian tv station).

look @ the motive here!

The monument and the land that it is on is privately owned land, and therefore is not a government endorsement of religion. The city formerly owned the monument, but sold it in 2002. So this is not a case of "separation of chuch and state."

how is it on privatly owned land? it's at the freakin' courthouse, which is government (aka public) property. doesn't matter who owns the monument, it still can't be there. and where do you get that he sold it? that's not mentioned anywhere in the article. could you post a link?

Yep. Should have done it in the first place. Sorry.

http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleas...mmandments.asp

Quote from article:
-------------------------------
In filing a motion to intervene as a defendant, the ACLJ cites that the FOE owns the display and the property, not the city and argues that the court has no jurisdiction over the FOE or removal of the monument since the FOE is not a party in the case. The ACLJ also today filed a motion for reconsideration asking the court to set aside the July 14th decision declaring the monument unconstitutional, ordering it to be returned to the city and removed. The court’s decision was in response to a lawsuit challenging the monument filed against the city of La Crosse by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The ACLJ argues that because the FOE is a private organization, its decision to display the monument is constitutionally protected and cannot violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The FOE installed the monument in 1965 and the city owned it until August 2002 when it sold the property and monument to the FOE.

The ACLJ contends that the sale of the monument in the La Crosse case passes constitutional scrutiny in the same manner that a federal appeals court determined in 2000 that it was valid and appropriate for the city of Marshfield, Wisconsin to sell a statue of Jesus to a private landowner as long as it was made clear to the public that the city no longer owned the statue. The ACLJ represented the city of Marshfield in that case. In its motion for reconsideration in the La Crosse case, the ACLJ cites the Marshfield decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that concluded “. . .a sale of real property is an effective way for a public body to end its inappropriate endorsement of religion.”
--------------------------

So apparently, there has already been a similar ruling on this issue.

i read the article, but i cant seem to figure out how the hell does a private party own a state courthouse?

i'm confused

"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state."
Legal Information Institute - Cornell University

thanks for the link. i wonder what FOE is. as it is, i don't agree with the previous ruling. in my opinion, it does not matter who owns the land or the object in question. if the goven't is leasing the land for thier use, who owns it doesn't matter, it is being used for official government use and what is one it is a reflection one them. if i lease a house, and grow pot there, does that mean that the leasers are also pot growers? no. i am. (although, in reality, i'm not. this is hypothetical).

by allowing something of a religious nature (like the monument) on property that is being used by the government, it is still showing silent endorsement of the religion.

leasing!

if the property is being leased, then then owner cant dictate what should be put up on the property.

if i'm leasing a house from somebody, they cant come in and tell me what i should put up on my walls!

Umm, yeah they can. You don't own that property, they do if you're leasing the property, they still technically own that property. Even people who don't own your house can tell you what you can and can't do to your home (Home Owner's Associations). You have to obtain permission to change something in a house that you're leasing or renting. If you own a house out in the woods with nobody around, and aren't part of an HOA then you can do basically anything you want within the limits of the law.

Why are you using a case from Wisconsin? This doesn't have anything to do with the display in Alabama.

last time i checked, a lease is an agreement between the owner of property and the person looking to use that property. the contract between them states that the owner is responsible for general upkeep of the property, but otherwise has very little say about what goes on there except that which is explicitly stated in the contract. if you lease a house, you are essentially taking "temporary ownership" of the house. you are responsible for damages you cause. the actual owner has no say over what can be put there unless it is specifically stated in the contract. the leasee also can only modify things according to the lease agreement. so if it says "no nails in the walls" then you can't hang pictures using nails. but you have complete say over what pictures/posters you hang, as long as you don't damage the house while hanging them. as for homeowners associations, if you live in a place with one, when you buy the home you sign an agreement giving up certain rights, like what you can do with the outside of your house, landscaping, agreeing to keep the lawn mowed, etc. in exchange, everyone else contributes to keep the neighborhood looking good.

so no, being the owner of a leased property does not give you the right to say what's put there. you lose pretty much all rights of an owner except that which is explicitly stated in the contract between leaser and leasee.

I know that, it's just that if you enter into a contract where it's restrictive (which is dumb, I don't agree with people telling you what you can do with ur house if you own it) the owner can tell you what you do with it. I'm just saying that they can, but unless they wise up, then they won't get very many tennants.

Cool! So what you are saying is that me and a bunch of my friends can break into a courthouse at night and plant a 2 ton sculpture of Cthulu in the rotunda? Now I have a project for my off time...

Debaser: You would probably be able to. I mean, this will probably all end with a sculpture of Allah put in place of the Ten Commandment's to show our nation's "sensitivity" to Muslims.

Smooth: The case in Wisconsin relates to the case in Alabama, due to ownership of property. Read the quote I posted. Law is all about precedent.

johnny,

Maybe I missed something--is the courthouse in Alabama leased property?

(I know law is all about precedent--that's why I haven't bothered responding to the people quoting the 1st Amendment as if that were the only relevant law on the books in regards to this topic).

Since the Islamic faith generally forbids any representation of man in it's artwork, a sculpture of Allah would be a lousy way of showing "sensitivity" to Muslims.

the owner is not telling the tenets what they cant do, the owner would be telling them WHAT TO DO.

i'm 99.9% sure that the lease didnt say that the people leasing had to put up the 10 commandments.

Smooth,

I don't know if the courthouse is leased property. Mael made that point. I'm just saying that there has been a previous ruling that the sale of a monument has relieved the issue of government endorsement of religion.

Unless I miss my guess, the FOE is the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

You sure? I thought FOE (Friends Of Evil) was the criminal organization headed by the evil mastermind Dr. Neutrino whose diabolical plot to dominate the world was foiled by Mark Time and his space rangers!

You confused me when you posted this:

The link you provided is about a display in a park that has been present since 1965. The land and the display were sold to a private party and the case is in dispute; the case is not precedent--it hasn't been decided yet.

This case in Alabama, however, is not on private land, nor can the land be sold to a private individual since it is the inside of a courthouse. The judge already ruled that the monument can be moved into the Alabama judge's office.

There you go, hopefully that will clear up some confusion and end the detour argument over leased property rights.

edit:
this article http://www.lacrossetribune.com/artic...wscommands.txt (written four days after the one you posted) states that a federal judge rejected the argument that the display could remain. He ordered for the monument to be removed and the city to recompensed for the costs of removal.

Unless the Supreme Court intervenes there is no precendent for the monument to remain in either Alabama or Wisconsin.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

respecting = to have reference to
establishment = a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws

My interpretation of this passage is that Congress is not allowed to make a law to establish an official state religion. Having the commandments there, regardless of this man's goals in doing so, is fully within his rights (assuming he has the right to place a display of any type there). It in no way establishes a state religion, nor does it prohibit the right of citizens to freely practice their religion of choice. It simply acknowledges the origin of United States law. His goals are of no consequence here.

This is not a first amendment issue, it is an issue of if he had the right to put anything there without permission in the first place. The few stories I've read say that he had it installed after the building closed, keeping the other justices in the dark. If he had the right to do this, then in my opinion he had the right to do it period.

Of course, this whole argument is based on my personal interpretation of the words in the first amendment, and I'm sure you'll let me know if there is a flaw in it.

An interesting side note: Ever been to a courthouse and gazed upon the statue of Themis, the Greek goddess of Justice? The blindfolded figure holding the scales of justice is a Greek goddess, a religious figure.

"You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." "New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345. 349, 41 S,Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1923) (Holmes, J.)

In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. I, 15-16, Justice Black writes:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment
means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government
can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion
, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither
can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from
church against his will or force him to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for enter
-taining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for
church attendence or non-attendence.

. . . In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause was intended
to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."


In 1971 the Supreme Court (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602, 612-613)
applied the following test to laws with respect the the First Amendment:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
second, its principal or primary effect must be one that
neither advances nor prohibits religion ...; finally, the
statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement
with religion." [Stone v Graham, 449 US at 40]

good point.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...3_means17.html

also, look @ the symbolism of themis

as for the blindfold, also, there is usually no writing on the statue of themis.

on the other hand, the 10 commandments has writing that addresses what people should and should not do and it doesnt symbolize anything in our justice system.

the justice system allows what the commandments deems people should not do.

yay. :D

the justice gets justice.

yay indeed.

Fundies make great bulldozer track grease. Let them stand fast in their beliefs.

Probably good fertilizer also.

Extremism of the Christian or Islam varieties should make everyone itch.

2Wolves

Christians don't fly planes into buildings or Strap bombs to their chests.

that's just because they're upset that they didn't think of it first. but hey, at least they can still claim the inquisition and usage of iron maidens as their own.

lol, let's not get uncivilized or stereotypical here.

not true. remember the boy in miami that took off with the plane and crashed it into the sky scraper?? i'm pretty sure he was christian :D

anyway, i'm not gonna judge christians upon the actions of the kid and i hope you dont do that to other religions either.

Search the Internet for abortion clinic bombings.

Apparently you haven't heard anything about why Ireland is being really fucked over right now. I concede, there are extremists, they're everywhere, not just in one particular religion, but in all of them. All the people that I have met that have been of non-Jewish Middle Eastern descent have been really cool, I'm not going to automatically brand every Arab that I see as a terrorist, it's not right. Back to the issue at hand however. Now if these tablets had just the Roman Numerals I-X on them, would you object as much? Or how about if it weren't so large? I don't know, you guys know that I don't have a problem with this that's my point of view. Now this is a question for 2wolves, I hope you were being facetious about that bulldozer track grease comment, because those people are using their Constitutional right to peacefully protest something that they don't like, much like the lunch counter sit ins back when segregation was still going on, much like Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus. Why is that extremism? It's not like these people are threatening to blow something up if they remove the monument, they're just sitting there and keeping a watch.

Archer don't be a fool! They are all obviously bible-bumping extremists...

The people I have heard claim that the content is much less important than the reasons the judge stated as his basis for erecting the monument: to indicate that the creator's law is above man's law.

That is a perfectly fine belief for one to personally possess. It does not, however, square with our country's essential belief that we ought to governed by laws and not men--including human interpretation of divinely bestowed knowledge.

In this country, at least, our law is supreme--we don't kowtow to any other source of regulation, not even international law if the two collide. This debate wouldn't even be occurring if he had stuck a big, brass cast of his head on a pedestal--yet, here we are arguing over whether a judge can erect monuments in public arenas, especially along with the explicitly stated intent to place the very purpose of the building in which it stands into a subordinate position (sorry, that turned into a convaluted sentence: the monument has been placed in a courthouse to proclaim its dominance over the very principles of the courthouse).

To me, that is very bizarre.

Well..... I wouldn't start a Crusade to run over X-tian fundamentalists, nor a Jihad to do the same to Islamic hyper-believers but in my personal experience and reflecting on some of history's dirtiest moments religion is a mental disorder. Jim Jones, the odd version of Buddhaism found in Nippon, Jehova's Witlesses, the current crop of x-tian "End Timers," killing most of the heathens in North - South - Central America, and so on and so on and so on and so on.

2Wolves

Religion Belongs in church. Not in Government building for all the people.

:lol: Right!

I'm itching myself right now. :D

Try Ireland......
and various other incidents of Christian sponsored massacres. The Inquisition comes to mind.... as do the crusades.....

Putting the technical legality of the presence of the monument aside for a moment, the judge's justification for its placement has little to do with historical accuracy. He claims the Constitution is based on Biblical beliefs and based on the Christain faith of the Founders. This is absolutely not the case. It's based on French and English philosophy, among other secular inspirations, with no references to religion to be found.

Now, placement of a Ten Commandments monument in a public building is tacit promotion of a specific religion, and at the very least, it's confusing. I would rather let it stay--in addition to Hammurabi's Code, and whatever the equivalents are in the Q'uran, Talmud, Book of the Dead, and I Ching.

I though we had fredom of religion not from religion. Also if you get put on the stand don't your still swear on a bible?

No, you don't still swear on a bible--at least, not in Oregon or California.

what about the oath?? "may god help me" or something like that?

If you were required to make a refference to god then it would clearly be promoting a specific religion, wouldn't it ?
"so help me God" and the like must be optional. Why should muslims or atheists have to take an oath to God. It wouldn't mean anything and would only offend.

Too much Law and Order ;).

It might differ by judge but in all the cases I've had to testify I only had to state "I affirm to tell the truth."

Besides atheists and other people, (Muslims believe in the same deity, BTW :) ), Jehovah's Witness and various other denominations believe swearing oaths are against the Bible (Matthew 5:33-37) and have successfully established a legal right for one to refuse to swear in. That is, one can choose to affirm rather than swear.

Wrong because America was founded as a Theist nation, not claiming feality(sp?) to any one particular God...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

the declaration of independence is not the constitution.

So? The constitution says you have freedom of religion not from it. And Besides the Declaration is at the very foundation of this country, it represents (or at least did at one point and time) everything this country stands for, and the principles it was founded on.

According to the first set of Swedish laws, you could kill buskers and people from the county of Dalarna without any penalty.

Wish we'd kept those.

Ok... I thing I see what you are trying to say, but frankly that is stupid. First you said the Declaration was not the constitution, I agree'd for the reasons posted above. Now you are saying Swedish law at one time allowed murder? How does that have anything to do with what we are talking about? The constitution isn't law, its rights guarenteed to American citizens, furthermore like stated several times in this post the constitution provides FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not from it.

I haven't mentioned the Declaration.

But I feel that if placing the commandments where Moore did is okay, and an expression of religious freedom, they should make place for more monuments, including shrines for the worship of Chinese saints and Shinto kami.

Or tear the commandments down.
All of this reminds me of Animal Farm, the pigs are more equal etc.

freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion. in simplist terms, religion is a set of beliefs about the nature of the universe, etc. using that definition, to be an atheist is a form of religion of its own. by putting the monument up the judge is promoting one religion over, and his over others.

I hear what you guys are saying, and believe me I don't think it is all that unreasonable. But seroiusly whether or not you liberal types want to admit it there is a serious push in this country that is moving to discredit and remove religion. America started out as as a solely Christian country, that was a big part of our Identity. We flourished because we remembered that ,"except the lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it". Now adays we are pulling away from that identity, and again whether or not you want to realize it, that is a big problem. It was one of the things that made us great (not saying we weren't without flaws).

You're starting to sound like Osama bin Laden.

Excuse me??? How does anything I said even remotely come close to anything that has ever been utterted out of that piece of shits mouth?

well, you've got a pretty good start at revisionist history going on, which is often found in fundamentalism, which is osama up the wazoo.

SHow me where any of that is revisionist?

weren't for prayer? i hate to break it to you, but religion didn't really have anything to do with the forming of our country. we were not formed as a christian country (a pretty big reason for freedom of religion). if we had been, the founding fathers would have made us a christian country, and said "but you can follow whatever religion you want, but jesus makes our rules" or "only christianity here." they did neither. they set it up so that all religions were welcome (which in itself is pretty non-christian seeing as how they try to convert all non-x-tians.)

Your right about the government never endorsing Christianity, but it was still a big part of the national identity, so again what was revisionist about what I said? Also my whole prayer speal didn't relate at all so I removed it, i'll concede that (it has more to do with the drafting of the constitution).

that's pretty non-factual. if you go back to the original settlers from europe, then sorta. they didn't come here to "christianize" the place, they came to worship as they pleased freely without persecution. and while christianity (various forms, not one denomination) was the predominant religion, they weren't the only religion, and it wasn't founded as a christian nation. that's the revisionist part, saying that it was solely a christian country. and now i'm going to sleep.

I should field this since I stated it. For the record, revisionist history wasn't my point--so you don't need to argue that with me.

I'll start with the core belief and we'll work from there.

Islamic fundamentalists' central claim, similar to the one you just made, is that society must merge religion and politics to return it to an era where religious morals reigned over reason.

According to them, also similar to to what you just stated, their nation will be great again if, but only if, they return to the golden age (even if such a golden age is mythical) when religious ideology dominated society.

You even interspersed religious verse into your paragraph.

I wasn't intending to offend you--I doubt you even realized the similarities and therein lies the danger.

The Founders didn't make this a specifically Christian nation because of their personal experience with an oppressive government that makes you believe something that you don't want to believe. Just look at a great deal of ANY of the Founding Fathers and you will discover that a great majority of them were in fact, Christian people. And smooth, you can't equate people who use Bible verses in something that they say to Osama bin Laden, that's unfair. Bin Laden is a complete nut, I don't think that Mojo_PeiPei is a complete nut, though you may think he is. If you're going to equate people who quote verses from their holy scriptures to Osama bin Laden, let's include them all shall we? The Pope, George Washington, Noah Webster, Ben Franklin a few Atheists quoting the Humanist Manifesto, I could go on and on. Now do you want to equate these people to a nut who wants to kill all American Infidels? If anyone is taking a revisionist point of view on history, it's you guys not acknowledging what historical fact has clearly laid infront of you.

archer2371, if you think I stated that he was beginning to sound like Osama (I didn't equate him to Osama) because he used religious verse then you didn't understand my post.

I'm not going to engage your discussion regarding what is or is not revisionism--I stated clearly in my first sentence that I didn't make any claims about that subject.

I know you've read most of my posts so you likely already know that:

1) I don't believe Osama bin Laden is a nut. He is a political dissident fighting against the perceived secularization of his culture and the onslaught of global capitalism.

2) I don't know about Webster but I've already made analogies between our founding framers, revolutionaries, and terrorists--so yeah, I do include them in a similar category.

3) I don't believe that people are nuts, in general--regardless if it's you, Mojo, Osama, or anyone else you want to invoke from a few hundred years ago. Despite actions and claims that seem irrational to others, each of you believe them to be rational. We label people nuts when we can't understand their motives but that doesn't mean they don't understand themselves.

Again I would like to reiterate I don't advocate some Christian theocracy, just that people realize that ,"except the lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." I don't quote this in favor of Christianity, I quote it in favor of God The creator that created all men equal and whom endowed all with unalienable rights.

What about those of us who don't believe in God?

What about you? You are equally protected under the law, you have all the rights of the land just as the next person does. Your entitled to your beliefs just as I am entitled to mine.

So why should I realize:

You don't have to realize anything, its your choice.

Yes , the Supreme Court has ruled that there should be no big slab of granite in any state building unless ...
it's Arnold Schwarzenegger

So what you're saying is that George Washington is just the same as a guy who sent young men to die and kill 3,000 innocent civilians. Right, that makes a whole lot of sense. If bin Laden were targeting military people within his country, it would be so much more different. But attacking innocent people who have done nothing to him is inexcusable. Name me one incident where the American Revolutionaries specifically targeted civilians to wrest from the grasp of an oppressive British rule, there are none. Yeah, you're right, in the eyes of the British they were traitors, but you cannot define the Minutemen as terrorists because they did not specifically target civilians. But believe me when I say that a majority of the FF were indeed Christian, check it out, I encourage you.

fine. show me evidence that they were christian. i've seen many sources that say that many of them, especially ben franklin, washington, and jefferson were deists. and even if most of the FF's were christian, so what? that doesn't make us a christian nation. during the revolution, i think it's safe to say that most of the country was agricultural in some form, that doesn't make us an agricultural nation.

Isn't that statement a little unrelated? The whole world was agricultural because the industrial revolution hadn't really picked up yet.

no. it's not unrelated. basically, just because "A" is a part of everyone's life doesn't define everyone and all of their motives as being related to "A."

Terrorism is defined as non-state sponsered military action--not killing innocent people.

But since you bring it up, killing civilians is "collateral damage." Sometimes, according to some people on this board, people have to "break some eggs to make an omelate."

If you read my posts rather than reading into them I stated that their ideologies were similar--not that the people or that their actions were the same.

We'll save the issue of the innocent, indigenous population already living here who were deliberately targeted for another thread...

10 comandments @ the courthouse
 

My opinion is this---> "separation of church and state", period. It’s pretty simple but it’s always Getting bent and misconstrued into whatever certain groups desire.
I’m sick of it, if the religions of this country want to get involved with the judicial system or the way the country’s run then they need to start paying taxes. Taxes on their land holdings and taxes on their income, yes I said income. Until that time, they need to shut the hell up and deal with life as it is. If you want to play in this game, you gotta pay the entrance fee just like everybody else……………………………whew! I feel better now, guess I just needed to vent a little.

This made my day.

I have bumped this discussion because the Supreme Court has agreed to rule on two cases from a narrower perspective and will be making a decision next month. The question before the justices is:

Can government officials prominently display the Biblical Commandments at public buildings or in courthouses to demonstrate the nation's religious heritage?

It would appear that who owns the property has been taken out of the equation.

I tend to be a strict constitutionalist, but as has been well argued above, the written word and the intent of the founding fathers is open to some interpretation and debate.
This particular group of justices tend to end in a 5/4 split, particularly in precident setting issues such as this.

I would like to invite anyone interested to provide their arguments for or against this decision that you believe will be the most persuasive to the nine justices.

The Supremes have ruled...


Court Splits on Commandments Cases
USA Today

Monday 27 June 2005

Washington - The Supreme Court, struggling with a vexing social issue, held Monday it was constitutionally permissible to display the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol but that it was a violation of separation of church and state to place them in Kentucky courthouses.

The 5-4 decision in the Kentucky case, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, 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.

"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc - Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.

Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.

He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

"In the court's view, the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."

"The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote.

The case was one of two heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas. That case asks whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on the grounds outside the state capitol.

The cases marked the first time since 1980 the high court tackled the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets.

A broader ruling than the one rendered Monday could have determined the allowable role of religion in a wide range of public contexts, from the use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a question that has sharply divided the lower courts in recent years.

But in their ruling Monday, justices chose to stick with a cautious case-by-case approach.

Two Kentucky counties originally hung the copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After the ACLU filed suit, the counties modified their displays to add other documents demonstrating "America's Christian heritage," including the national motto of "In God We Trust" and a version of the Congressional Record declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible."

When a federal court ruled those displays had the effect of endorsing religion, the counties erected a third Ten Commandments display with surrounding documents such as the Bill of Rights and Star-Spangled Banner to highlight their role in "our system of law and government."

The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal subsequently struck down the third display as a "sham" for the religious intent behind it.

Ten Commandments displays are supported by a majority of Americans, according to an AP-Ipsos poll. The poll taken in late February found that 76% support it and 23% oppose it.

The last time the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue was 1980, when it struck down a Kentucky law requiring Ten Commandments displays in public classrooms.

I wonder if they will rule you can put up the 10 commandments on your property before the government steals it from you to make a new golf course.

Ustwo, I don't agree with everything you say, but I do like hearing them when you have the patience to say something without all the heavy-handed sarcasm and explosive comments. Please stop muting your intelligence that I know you've posted with before with this kind of pointless stuff that doesn't add anything except to irritate people. Maybe your dry sense of humor works better in person, but in this forum (politics), it gets lost in internet translation and just fuels all the negativity :(

Thank you, Meepa. I have been hoping for a more honest level of discussion as well.

Again, I don't understand all the hoo-ha over this. To me it's just the Right's excuse to keep condemning the SC until they load it with people that are of "christian" values and will decide everything along party lines. And that is bullshit. Because party should never enter into the interpretation of the Constitution, nor should religion.

The SC DID NOT say, "government buildings could not display the 10 Commandments"... they said in effect that the 10 Commandments should not be held as a religious symbol but as an historical symbol in GOVERNMENT buildings. NOWHERE DO I READ PRIVATE PROPERTY (I.E. BUSINESSES) IS TO BE HELD TO THIS STANDARD.

WTF is wrong with that statement???? Freedom of religion, no state endorsed religion.... obviously Ky. was endorsing a Judeo-Christian religious philosophy and using other items as such. It was wrong.

However, the SC states that as historical elemants they can be hung.

What is so wrong with that? Is the Right so far up Pat Robertson and company's arses that freedom of religion and freedom from religion are integral parts of our Constitution and cases like this should have rulings like this?