Ten comandments; Intersting

[crazyfingers]

Ah, I'm glad you brought that up as the very highly publicized case that was recently in the news about this subject involved a monument that was not funded with public tax money. In fact, most cases I'm familiar with involvement such privately donated monuments.

Regardless, we don't argue and debate over public tax money being spent to decorate public buildings with art and other decor.



Actually, I don't. The Constitution is quite clear - anything more "deeply" read into it is unconstitutional... and I'm sure the US Supreme Court will adjudicate this issue on the same grounds.

It's clear from previous supreme court rulings that the government is prohibited from endorsing one religious belief over another. Posting the 10C on government property is an endorsement of the Abrahamic religious beliefs above other religious beliefs.

Do you believe in equal religious freedom for all? Or do you think that those who hold to one religious view should have more ar less religious freedom than others?

 

[jameseb]

That's not what I asked. I wondered if you had an opinion about the idea of US Law being based on the 10C's.

My apologies, but I was addressing the OP.

As for your question... I have no idea whether or not the founding father's looked to the 10C's as even a remote guideline for our laws, and I don't believe anyone here was around in those days to ask them so I don't honestly know how either side can confirm their position on it.

Actually, you bring up an interesting point. There are three different versions of the 10 commandments (Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish). Would posting one version be an endorsement of that particular religion over others?

You mean the three slightly different versions of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus 20:2-17, Exodus 34:12-26, and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. I personally wouldn't care as the message is the same.

How about this though.... if the words were changed ever so slightly (still conveying the same meaning) would it then no longer "endorse" a religion?

 

[kermit]

Ah, I'm glad you brought that up as the very highly publicized case that was recently in the news about this subject involved a monument that was not funded with public tax money. In fact, most cases I'm familiar with involvement such privately donated monuments.

Regardless, we don't argue and debate over public tax money being spent to decorate public buildings with art and other decor.

I have no problem with public displays that are privately funded. My beef is when public money is used to promte one religion over another.

Sometimes we do (not here) argue over how public money is spent to decorate building with art. My town is very historic. A few years ago there was a beautification effort that involved historic murals being painted on buildings. Many felt that this money could be better spent to help the poor. There was a heated debate as to how this money is spent. In the end the murals were painted.

Actually, I don't. The Constitution is quite clear - anything more "deeply" read into it is unconstitutional... and I'm sure the US Supreme Court will adjudicate this issue on the same grounds.

What in the constitution is this based upon? I never said that the religious momuments are unconstitutional. I stated that the law alloting money for them is unconstitutional.

 

[crazyfingers]

I have no problem with public displays that are privately funded. My beef is when public money is used to promte one religion over another.

Sometimes we do (not here) argue over how public money is spent to decorate building with art. My town is very historic. A few years ago there was a beautification effort that involved historic murals being painted on buildings. Many felt that this money could be better spent to help the poor. There was a heated debate as to how this money is spent. In the end the murals were painted.


What in the constitution is this based upon? I never said that the religious momuments are unconstitutional. I stated that the law alloting money for them is unconstitutional.

So I assume that if an atheist group, or a Hindu group or any other group that does not accept christianity were to build a monument that made statement in direct opposition to christianity and ploped it onto courthouse or other government property, that in your opinion the government should not take it down?

 

[praying]

I think an interesting question to ask is if there's anything wrong with a nation basing its laws on the Ten Commandments.

Only those commandments that are universal, but then that would not be basing your laws on the commandments just borrowing a couple.

 

[crazyfingers]

I think an interesting question to ask is if there's anything wrong with a nation basing its laws on the Ten Commandments.

Of course there is. The first 4 would mean the establishment of theocracy and theocracy is a violation of freedom of relgion.

 

[k]

Given that you were in the US Army I thought you would have known, but adultery is a punishable offense under the UCMJ, Article 134 ("bringing discredit upon the armed forces"), and people to this very day are prosecuted for it.

Hmm, interesting....

I am well aware of the UCMJ but I do not see how it applies to the civilian population, or the country as a whole. My understanding is the thread is talking about the country as a whole, so the UCMJ seems out of step for the purposes of this thread. Maybe another could be created talking about the differences between the UCMJ and the laws for civilians? For one thing, we don't see civilians getting Article 15's, and for another, there are several things people in the military are capable of being prosecuted of that civilians are not subjected to.

 

[Cherub8]

Jefferson wrote it, I think anything he wrote in regards to it makes it pretty explicit what he meant therein.

Jefferson did not write the Constitution. If I remember correctly, Jefferson was in France at the time. Madison penned it after much debate at the Constitutional convention.

"Congress shall make no law..."

A courthouse in Alabama is not Congress, and a monument of the Ten commandments is, to the best of my knowledge, not a law; therefore, the 1st Amendment carries no weight over this issue.

The separation of church and state prohibits establishment...as in establishing a national church by law. Madison, Jefferson, et al, would be disgusted to know the 1st Amendment is being used to tear down the Ten Commandments. FYI, the modern definition of separation of C&S was invented by the Supreme Court in the Everson v Board of Education decision, 1947, as I recall.

Huh...while Jefferson was President, he also served as the head of public schools in DC, and in that position of authority he required the Bible to be taught to all children. Yet today that wouldn't be allowed.

Jefferson would be ashamed.

 

[crazyfingers]

The separation of church and state prohibits establishment...as in establishing a national church by law.

It means much more than that. I don't know where people get these false notions. It means that the government may not show preference for one religion over another or religion over non-religionor the reverse. And the prohibition applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Madison, Jefferson, et al, would be disgusted to know the 1st Amendment is being used to tear down the Ten Commandments.

Unlikely.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?


Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

The objections to them are:

1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms.
2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate.
3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea. But reason and the principles of the Xn religion require that all the individuals composing a nation even of the same precise creed & wished to unite in a universal act of religion at the same time, the union ought to be effected thro' the intervention of their religious not of their political representatives. In a nation composed of various sects, some alienated widely from others, and where no agreement could take place thro' the former, the interposition of the latter is doubly wrong:
4. The tendency of the practice, to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect. The Ist proclamation of Genl Washington dated Jany 1. 1795 recommending a day of thanksgiving, embraced all who believed in a supreme ruler of the Universe." That of Mr. Adams called for a Xn worship. Many private letters reproached the Proclamations issued by J. M. for using general terms, used in that of Presit W--n; and some of them for not inserting particulars according with the faith of certain Xn sects. The practice if not strictly guarded naturally terminates in a conformity to the creed of the majority and a single sect, if amounting to a majority.
5. The last & not the least objection is the liability of the practice to a subserviency to political views; to the scandal of religion, as well as the increase of party animosities. Candid or incautious politicians will not always disown such views. In truth it is difficult to frame such a religious Proclamation generally suggested by a political State of things, without referring to them in terms having some bearing on party questions. The Proclamation of Pres: W. which was issued just after the suppression of the Insurrection in Penna and at a time when the public mind was divided on several topics, was so construed by many. Of this the Secretary of State himself, E. Randolph seems to have had an anticipation.

James Madison Detatched Memoranda

Huh...while Jefferson was President, he also served as the head of public schools in DC, and in that position of authority he required the Bible to be taught to all children. Yet today that wouldn't be allowed.

That's another false statement. It's another of many lies propagated by David Barton in his terrible book The Myth of Separation.

The fact of the matter is that the Washington schools did not start using the bible until three years after Jefferson retired to Virginia. And in Jefferson's original plan for the school, there is no mention of any bible usage. His plan was that "...poor children shall be taught reading, writing, grammar, arithmetic, and such branches of the mathematics as may qualify them for the professions they are intended to follow, and they shall receive such other instruction as is given to pay pupils, as the board my from time to time direct, and pay pupils shall, besides be instructed in geography and in the Latin language."

In other words, the first mention of the use of the Bible and a Christian hymnal in the Washington public schools is in connection with a curriculum adopted in 1812, three years after Jefferson has left Washington and the school board for retirement in Virginia. Contrary to Barton's implied claim, Jefferson was not president of the school board when the Bible was being used for instruction. Barton simply omits information he doesn't want his readers to know, and so allows them to draw an conclusion that his own source refutes. Barton, we conclude, is either sloppy or dishonest in his use of evidence. Either alternative should cause the reader to question the soundness of Barton's scholarship.

Source

Jefferson would be ashamed.

Actually, he would be angry that people like David Barton are making up lies about him.

 

[seebs]

I think it's quite possible that some of the Founders did not maintain much separation of church and state. Some of them also kept slaves. They were new at liberty, and did not fully understand it or implement it.

Nonetheless, establishment of religion, as in the case of putting the 10C's in a courthouse, is unambiguously in conflict with our principles of liberty. It is also blasphemous. (Consider; is the government God? Does it have the authority to make such claims?)

It is wrong, pure and simple. That it is under discussion at all is simply terrifying. Theocracy would be an absolute catastrophe for both church and state. Thanks, but no thanks; I'd like to keep some freedoms, so I can actually obey God instead of the government, and not be shot for it. Or perhaps stoned.

 

[Grizzly]

Jefferson did not write the Constitution. If I remember correctly, Jefferson was in France at the time. Madison penned it after much debate at the Constitutional convention.

"Congress shall make no law..."

A courthouse in Alabama is not Congress, and a monument of the Ten commandments is, to the best of my knowledge, not a law; therefore, the 1st Amendment carries no weight over this issue.

Let's take a look at the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Does this mean that state governments can stop freedom of speech? Can state governments shut down newspapers? Stop people from assembling? Establish state churches? Because that's what it seems you are implying by your most narrow interpretation of the First Amendment as being restricted to restraining congress.

 

[snowydc2003]

Governments these days (especially in the western world) do not govern over one specific religion and so therefore they should not include any religious symbolism, teachings etc in any of their workings as this could been considered offensive to anothers religion.

 

[crazyfingers]

Let's take a look at the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Does this mean that state governments can stop freedom of speech? Can state governments shut down newspapers? Stop people from assembling? Establish state churches? Because that's what it seems you are implying by your most narrow interpretation of the First Amendment as being restricted to restraining congress.

No kidding. It never fails to amaze me that those who propose that the establishment clause and free exercise clause do not apply to the states never seem to consider that same "logic" would also apply to the other parts of the 1st Amendment - or the other parts of the entire Bill of Rights.

Actually, I'll take that back, one person did. He thought that it was a good idea to allow states to prohibit free speech, eliminate freedom of the press, prohibit private associations, prohibit protest of the government, etc.. He thought that it would be OK for a state to establish blasphemy laws and impose the death penalty on those who commit "blasphemy" - in the name of democracy.

It was a powerful example of why that kind of thinking is so wrong.

 

[seebs]

Actually, I'll take that back, one person did. He thought that it was a good idea to allow states to prohibit free speech, eliminate freedom of the press, prohibit private associations, prohibit protest of the government, etc.. He thought that it would be OK for a state to establish blasphemy laws and impose the death penalty on those who commit "blasphemy" - in the name of democracy.

It was a powerful example of why that kind of thinking is so wrong.

I know of a number of people who hold this view. There is deep irony to it when you realize that a government attempting to enforce a blasphemy law is itself committing blasphemy.

 

[Cherub8]

Let's take a look at the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Does this mean that state governments can stop freedom of speech? Can state governments shut down newspapers? Stop people from assembling? Establish state churches? Because that's what it seems you are implying by your most narrow interpretation of the First Amendment as being restricted to restraining congress.

Now you're getting it. According to the 1st Amendment, yes, a State government can establish a church. In fact, I believe this happened in Massachusetts during the late 18th century.

You're the first liberal to understand the phrase, "Congress shall make no law." Give yourself a pat on the back!

However, some of the things you mentioned would be a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

 

[ade32]

Are we still talking about this? Who cares if they allow it or not? Aren't there more important things to worry about? Just leave it there for goodness sakes and get on with it.

Its just an issue that the right is using to tell everyone how 'Godless' that liberals are so they can fire up their evangelical base.

Now to brush off that huge Buddha statue and put it on top of the statehouse...

 

[seebs]

Now you're getting it. According to the 1st Amendment, yes, a State government can establish a church. In fact, I believe this happened in Massachusetts during the late 18th century.

You're the first liberal to understand the phrase, "Congress shall make no law." Give yourself a pat on the back!

However, some of the things you mentioned would be a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

The comment about "first liberal..." was gratuitous, uncharitable, and uncalled for.

However, who cares whether, in theory, something might be allowed under the letter of the law? Certainly, Christians should not be arguing such a position. The letter killeth, after all. It is not the letter of the law that we are answerable to, and the underlying principle the Establishment clause speaks to is clear.

 

[crazyfingers]

Now you're getting it. According to the 1st Amendment, yes, a State government can establish a church. In fact, I believe this happened in Massachusetts during the late 18th century.

Many states had state churches at the time of the nation's founding. They were all eliminated as each state decided that it was a bad thing.

You are aware that the 14th Amendment applies the 1st to the states?

You're the first liberal to understand the phrase, "Congress shall make no law." Give yourself a pat on the back!

However, some of the things you mentioned would be a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

I don't think that he's the first liberal to notice that. In fact, it's generally those who favor CSS who must remind those who oppose it that it's by way of the 14th Amendment that the First Amendment and other amendments have been "incorporated" and applied to the states.

 

[kermit]

Now you're getting it. According to the 1st Amendment, yes, a State government can establish a church. In fact, I believe this happened in Massachusetts during the late 18th century.

You're the first liberal to understand the phrase, "Congress shall make no law." Give yourself a pat on the back!

However, some of the things you mentioned would be a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

First off, a state cannot establish a church. The FA prevents the Fed from doing so and states cannot violate federal law.

At the penning of the FA it only applied to the US Congress (state congresses cannot violate federal law). But the FA doesn't exist in a vacuum; it exists as part of the whole constitution. The 14th Amendment applied the entire US constitution to all levels and branches of government. The 14th Amendment changes "Congress shall make no law" into "Government shall take no action". This is a tidbit that conservative like to ignore or downplay.

 

[k]

How many people think politicians should not be allowed to use religious rhetoric to support a platform? Isn't that putting religion on display in the form of words? Is that any different from displaying the words of the TC?