Ten comandments; Intersting

[crazyfingers]

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?

I think that they should not do it however I don't think that anyone has the authority to attempt to disallow it.

It seems clear that if a politician makes a religious appeal for a proposed policy, that politician must be able to provide at least an equally strong secular purpose. Otherwise the policy, if enacted, would be in direct conflict with the Lemon test which requires that government actions have a secular purpose and not a religious purpose.

However censoring the personal religious speech by politicians would be a violation of free speech rights. A politician is not the government. It's government action that falls under the establishment clause, not personal speech.

Of course, some people are confused about when a politician is speaking for himself and when he is speaking "for the government". A politician can do all the Jesus talk he wants when he's not "acting in the name of the government". The classic example is at town meeting. The mayer can do as much Jesus talk that he wants before and after the meeting when he is not officially speaking for the government. But during town meeting, once the mayer has called the meeting to order and he is running the meeting, he can not presume to pray to Jesus on behalf of the Government.

 

[k]

However censoring the personal religious speech by politicians would be a violation of free speech rights. A politician is not the government. It's government action that falls under the establishment clause, not personal speech.

I don't mean to suggest we censor a politician's speech 24 hrs a day. Can we separate when the politician is speaking for herself from the offic she represents? That's a great point about the separation of the action falling under the clause.

But during town meeting, once the mayer has called the meeting to order and he is running the meeting, he can not presume to pray to Jesus on behalf of the Government.

Guess one thing I am thinking of is when a politician finishes a speech with "God Bless America!" Firstly, ('cause it is the most important thing in my life) it offends me as a Chrisitian because it exludes about 5.7 BILLION people. Second, it offends me as an American because it exludes a LOT of Americans. What is the secular equivalent to "God Bless America?" (I understand it is not making an action or policy.)

 

[Norseman]

If this display is allowed, get ready for a whole host of busybodies from other religions trying to get their stuff on public buildings. It really is opening a can of worms.

Quite true. As soon as I can get a lot of support for an atheist symbol, I'm going to see if I can get the government to pay to make it in stone and put it on their property. I'm probably going to go with the IPU, since She is truly a classic staple of an atheist's diet (not that we eat our gods like some people do...). If they aren't willing to pay taxpayer dollars to put up my monument on their property like they seem on the verge of doing for others, I may decide to pursue the matter of religious discrimination further.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

My feelings:

I oppose ten commandments in courthouses because it implies that our judiciary imposes those laws, some of which being that you MUST worship the God of Abraham.

The establishment clause does not say government may not establish a religion. It says government may not RESPECT an establishment of religion. That means no showing preference to one religion. And as said before the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights to the states which means no state or local government (local governments aren't independent as states are, they are authorized by states) may do any of those things forbidden of the federal government, like respect an establishment of religion.

I oppose them hanging in schools because if we are to follow the constitution and not show preference, we'd have to allow a muslim, a hindu, a pagan, an atheist even to post their religious beliefs. Ditto for prayer, if a teacher can lead a prayer then an atheist teacher can tell the kids God doesn't exist and a Hindu can tell them to pray to Brahmin, Vishnu, Shiva, etc. etc.

 

[Cherub8]

And as said before the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights to the states

Wrong. None of the Bill of Rights were applied to the States until the 20th century. (Please read up on the Slaughterhouse cases.)
But even if what you said were true, it is still a restriction upon legislation, not actions.

leg·is·la·tion (l

j

-sl

sh

n)
n.

1. The act or process of legislating; lawmaking.
2. A proposed or enacted law or group of laws.

Freedom of Speech was applied to the States in 1925.
The Establishment clause wasn't perverted until 1947.
The Fifth amendment wasn't applied until 1964.

See what I'm getting at?

That's almost over 80 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Clearly, the Supreme Court pulled those 20th-century decisions out of thin air.

And then, there is the question of whether the 14th Amendment was properly ratified to being with.

By the way, what do you think of the 10th Amendment?
That's the one liberals will always ignore.

 

[Cherub8]

The problem here is that we have different philosophies, so there's no possible way we can reach a consensus of any sort. Liberals believe the Constitution is flexible --- I do not. I follow the philosophy of Jefferson on this issue:

[font=Arial, Helvetica]"The Constitution ... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51 [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]
It is undeniable that Jefferson would be opposed to judicial activism.

Scroll down to the middle of this page.....
[/font] http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria7_4.htm

 

[crazyfingers]

Wrong. None of the Bill of Rights were applied to the States until the 20th century.

The fact of the matter is that the 1st Amendment applies to the states by way of the 14th amendment as the supreme court has ruled. It doesn't matter when the supreme court made the ruling.

Do you really want to argue that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the states? Are you prepared to accept the fact that if you make that argument then you must also argue that the states have the power to prohibit freedom of speech, prohibit freedom of the press, prohibit freedom of association, prohibit the right to protest the government, eliminate right to freedom of religion along with the the power to establish compulsory church attendence at the church of the state's choosing? Do you really want the states to have the power to declare the Methodist religion blashamy? Or the Catholic religion blasphamy? Or to outlaw the Baptist chruch?

Are you prepared to make that argument? I hope not. But if you wish to argue that the establishment clause does not apply to the states, then you MUST also argue that none of those other fundamental human rights are protected from state power.

 

[ade32]

The problem here is that we have different philosophies, so there's no possible way we can reach a consensus of any sort. Liberals believe the Constitution is flexible --- I do not. I follow the philosophy of Jefferson on this issue:

I have issue with the way you brand the word 'liberal' around, presuming that ALL liberals think the same way. Its like saying that 'Blacks don't like apples' or 'women don't care for Mexican food'. How can you speak for at least 100 million Americans? You don't KNOW that 100 million liberals think 'the constitution is flexible'... There are 100 million liberals with 100 million views of the world.

For what its worth, I don't really care either way about the monument, but I know that if its allowed to stand then there is going to be a whole host of problems with people trying to get monuments from their religion on public buildings.

 

[crazyfingers]

The problem here is that we have different philosophies, so there's no possible way we can reach a consensus of any sort.

Do you really want to see a situation where state government would have the power to executed you for practicing your own religion? Because if you wish to argue that the 14th Amendment has been abused as you have argued, then you'll have to give to the states the power to do all of those things listed above plus more by also eliminating the fundamental protections afforded by other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

the tenth amendment says the people have control of anything not reserved to the government. Posting the ten commandments in a courthouse isn't a personal freedom. It is the government doing it. And if they can post them, they can post any similar document they want. One of them says you must worship God. If thats allowed then an atheist could post "Thou shalt not beleive in God." If the government steps in and says one is ok and the other isn't, it is respecting an establishment of religion.
And actions can violate the bill of rights. If its never legislated that you can't criticise the government but they arrest you anyway, they still violate your freedom of speech. The bill of rights was applied to the states in those court decision partially through interpretation of the 14th amendment, as well as the 10th. If you disagree with the court so be it but you have to accept its authority to decide.

 

[Cherub8]

the tenth amendment says the people have control of anything not reserved to the government. Posting the ten commandments in a courthouse isn't a personal freedom.

You missed the point.

The 10th amendment limits the Federal government to the enumerated powers. All of your favorite programs....social security, medicare, department of education, etc....are unauthorized in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and are therefore unconstitutional.

And actions can violate the bill of rights

Not when the 1st Amendment specifically refers to law.

 

[crazyfingers]

Cherub8, do you intend to address these issues?

The fact of the matter is that the 1st Amendment applies to the states by way of the 14th amendment as the supreme court has ruled. It doesn't matter when the supreme court made the ruling.

Do you really want to argue that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the states? Are you prepared to accept the fact that if you make that argument then you must also argue that the states have the power to prohibit freedom of speech, prohibit freedom of the press, prohibit freedom of association, prohibit the right to protest the government, eliminate right to freedom of religion along with the the power to establish compulsory church attendence at the church of the state's choosing? Do you really want the states to have the power to declare the Methodist religion blashamy? Or the Catholic religion blasphamy? Or to outlaw the Baptist chruch?

Are you prepared to make that argument? I hope not. But if you wish to argue that the establishment clause does not apply to the states, then you MUST also argue that none of those other fundamental human rights are protected from state power.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

The powers are reserved to the people. The government can't assume the responsibility for itself but the people can commision the government tohandle them for them. The founders didn't anticipate every possible occurance and in a different world the government needs to operate a little differently.

 

[Radical_Independent]

I heard an interesting quote the other night:

"So you have Jesus in your heart. Remind me again why you need a monument."

 

[PACKY]

I heard an interesting quote the other night:

"So you have Jesus in your heart. Remind me again why you need a monument."

an act of love.

 

[crazyfingers]

an act of love.

Can you explain?

 

[PACKY]

Can you explain?

What is there to explain?

 

[Radical_Independent]

an act of love.

I think God would prefer our obedience to fulfill the Great Commission and take care of the poor, the sick and the downtrodden more than a silly monument.

 

[crazyfingers]

What is there to explain?

Well, because I don't know what you man. You say that placing a monument to the 10Cs on government property is an act of love? Love of whom? God? Other people? The 10Cs?

If love of god or of the 10Cs, why on government property? Wouldn't private property or a church be more appropriate?

Love of other people? I certainly don't see it that way. I see it as an act of contempt for the religious freedom and points of view of others to attempt to usurp government authority to promote one religious point of view above all others.

 

[PACKY]

Well, because I don't know what you man. You say that placing a monument to the 10Cs on government property is an act of love? Love of whom? God? Other people? The 10Cs?

If love of god or of the 10Cs, why on government property? Wouldn't private property or a church be more appropriate?

Love of other people? I certainly don't see it that way. I see it as an act of contempt for the religious freedom and points of view of others to attempt to usurp government authority to promote one religious point of view above all others.

I have a Love of My God,I have a love for those who do GOOD,I respect your viewpoint and your opinion, Howver I will hold true to mine.
American law was based on English law
english law has it's roots in the 10 Commandments.