Ten Commandments in Courtrooms?

[HRE]

http://www.google.com/search?q=ACLU&ie=windows-1252&sitesearch=pcwatch.blogspot.com

hmmmm...didn't find any, did you?

Three hits:

"And if you think labeling our spruces and firs 'holiday trees' is the solution to the season's wars, just wait until the ACLU realizes what the dictionary already makes clear: That the word 'holiday' itself comes from the Old English 'holy day'." -- The Wall Street Journal. Via The Federalist

Really damning...

AMAZING

Is any word now safe?

A BOY, 7, was scolded and forced to write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again" after he told a classmate about his lesbian mother, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged yesterday.

Marcus McLaurin was waiting for recess at Ernest Gaullet Elementary School on November 11 when a classmate asked about Marcus' mother and father, the ACLU said in a complaint. Marcus responded he had two mothers because his mother is gay. When the other child asked for explanation, Marcus told him: "Gay is when a girl likes another girl," according to the complaint. A teacher who heard the remark scolded Marcus, telling him "gay" was a "bad word" and sending him to the principal's office. The following week, Marcus had to come to school early and repeatedly write: "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again."

How horrible...the ACLU defended a student's ability to use the word 'gay'...

DISRUPTIVE DEMONSTRATIONS CORRECT

Unless you are opposing abortion, of course

It sometimes pays incredibly well to be a protester in the city, as seven complainants discovered this week after the D.C. government agreed to ease their long-term distress with $425,000. The settlement goes back to demonstrations waged against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on Sept. 27, 2002, when D.C. police made mass arrests at Pershing Park, east of the White House. The settlement also calls for police Chief Charles H. Ramsey to write letters of apology to each of the seven. The pact, fortunately, stops short of requiring Mayor Anthony A. Williams to hold a ticker-tape parade in their honor.

It is, of course, almost an American pathology to be heard in a public forum, no matter the obscurity of the cause or absence of logic. Many of the protesters who descend on the nation's capital like the plague are a motley crew of anarchists, conspiracy theorists, peace activists, socialists, left-wing extremists, environmentalists and garden-variety loonies with nothing better to do than shout and be noticed. They take up good taxpayer money and the precious time of overworked law-enforcement agencies in order to get the word out about their life-changing political views.

They do so without regard to cost and a city's quality of life. They do so without consideration for the law-enforcement agencies, whose overtime duty has skyrocketed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Their need to be heard is all-powerful, their level of self-absorption matched only by their egos. These demonstrations sometimes turn nasty and destructive, as those emboldened by the protective cover of a crowd are apt to exceed the peaceful intentions of others.

The police, there to protect life, liberty and property, mostly have a thankless mission. The line between the First Amendment rights of the protesters and the property and safety rights of the innocent can be awfully gray. In this instance, police crossed the line, and the aggrieved seven, among the masses arrested and detained that day, have the healing power of $425,000, courtesy of the legal work of the American Civil Liberties Union. The real loser in this settlement is not the D.C. government. It is the average resident who lives in this increasingly cordoned-off city, who is inconvenienced by these events and then handed the bill. The bill is liable to grow, with three other ACLU lawsuits still pending

The morals of that case could be debated, yes, but it is hardly what you alleged...

Let's see...where to start.

The ACLU outlaws:
--The public singing of "Silent Night" and other Christmas carols.
--Displays of nativity scenes, crosses, and other Christian symbols on public property.
--Chaplains in prisons and the military.
--Prayer in classrooms, locker rooms, sports arenas, legislative assemblies, and at graduation exercises.
--Census questions regarding an individual's religious affiliation.
--Accreditation for science departments at Bible-believing Christian universities.
--Public funding for Christian schools.
--Voluntary Bible reading in public schools ... even during free time or after classes.
--Tax-exempt status for churches (though the ACLU favors this status for certain occult groups - and themselves)

Yep, sounds like they certainly love the Christian faith.

Third mention:

Yet this incident is about more than just censoring Teddy Roosevelt--it's about censoring anyone and anything that challenges an individual's or group's notions of what is appropriate or politically correct, especially when religious expression is involved. Religious symbols have been among the forms of expression most targeted for attack--from the tiny cross on Los Angeles County's seal (which was removed after the ACLU threatened a lawsuit) to small religious images, including a student-drawn angel, on some commemorative tiles in the hallways of Columbine High School in remembrance of the students killed during the horrific shootings that took place there. The tiles were chiseled out by school officials who feared that the religious imagery might violate the so-called "separation of church and state."

Ouch...that was harsh. Making a strong case, are you?

And another death blow for the ACLU:

"It turns out the Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman isn't the only one to dowdify the First Amendment. This is from the American Civil Liberties Union's Web page on free speech (ellipsis in original):

It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society.​

Not to slight the importance of free speech, which we happily exercise every day, but the ACLU has edited out freedom of religion, which comes ahead of speech".

And one more:

Those of you who think the Judge Roy Moore Ten Commandments flap in Alabama was some isolated sideshow are woefully misguided. Those of you who think that courageous Christians like Moore are the ones picking this fight by waiving the Bible in our faces apparently aren’t aware of the city by city, county by county, state by state crusade the ACLU is on to eradicate Ten Commandments displays from all public buildings.

Hmmm...wait, isn't there a thread about this somewhere?

The point is that the ACLU does file cases against Christianity, yes -- but at the same time it files cases for Christianity and against other religious organizations. It's job is to keep everyone in line: Christians, Atheists, the government -- all of them. No one is suggesting they love the Christian faith, but they certainly are not expressing an overt agenda to limit the rights of Christians. Rather, they're making sure Christians (along with everyone else) stays within their rights...something Christianity has failed to do more than any other religious group; thus, more lawsuits against Christians.

Now, will you be providing some cases that back your heavy assertions?

The ACLU outlaws:
--The public singing of "Silent Night" and other Christmas carols.
--Displays of nativity scenes, crosses, and other Christian symbols on public property.
--Chaplains in prisons and the military.
--Prayer in classrooms, locker rooms, sports arenas, legislative assemblies, and at graduation exercises.
--Census questions regarding an individual's religious affiliation.
--Accreditation for science departments at Bible-believing Christian universities.
--Public funding for Christian schools.
--Voluntary Bible reading in public schools ... even during free time or after classes.
--Tax-exempt status for churches (though the ACLU favors this status for certain occult groups - and themselves)

Yep, sounds like they certainly love the Christian faith.

And if you would be so kind as to explain why two and seven (the only ones I have ever seen any evidence for) are a bad thing, I would be much obliged.

 

[HRE]

So lets review the evidence:

Sometimes the ACLU supports Christian causes
Sometimes the ACLU does not support Christian causes
Most of the ACLU's cases have nothing to do with Christianity

Could it be that the ACLU is interested in an issue other then Christianity, and only cares when it overlaps? Something like, I don't know, free speech?

Or Alarum could beat me to my point in less words...

The state always endorsed a religion ever since its beginning. It just allows others without persecution. Did you know that the Supreme Court building has the engravings of law people and in the center is Moses and the ten commandments?

That is why we described the difference between a cultural display, like at the Supreme Court, and other displays in the second post in this thread.

 

[Bradford]

MOD NOTE!

I hate to bring out the REALLY big font, but let's all get one thing straight:

The flaming HAS to stop, NOW. It violates the rules of CF, and flaming is punishable by warnings.

Further flaming will likely result in warnings.

I hope I am clear.


(Aside: Thread moved from News and Current Events to General Political Discussion.

 

[Faith In God]

That is why we described the difference between a cultural display, like at the Supreme Court, and other displays in the second post in this thread.

Don't you mean 'I'? Thank you for pointing that out. Very nice post, by the way. But is it practical? The issue is the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, no? Not about constitutionality of enforcing the Ten Commandments. Apparently the founding fathers felt very well of the 'decalogue' as you call it if they went and did what they did. However, I disagree where you say that the First Amendment is meant to keep religion out of the government. It seems more along the lines of government allowing itself no persecution of religion rather than giving itself no religious affliation.

 

[ade32]

The Founding Fathers (being the God-fearing deists they were) fashioned much of what the Consitution is after the Ten Commandments. So why is it looked at like an endorsement of a religion instead of just a historical monument in honor of something that affected our country for hundreds of years?

Would you mind if there were statues or passages of native american gods on public grounds? Personally I'd think they were historic figures too and have no problem with them. So I say, let the 10 commandments stay.

 

[HRE]

Would you mind if there were statues or passages of native american gods on public grounds? Personally I'd think they were historic figures too and have no problem with them. So I say, let the 10 commandments stay.

As a cultural display (like what you are referring to), yes, of course. As the sole foundation of US law (like Judge Moore was displaying them), no.

 

[Milla]

I'm just having fun with you...
My son is in a charter school.

A charter school, is, I suppose, an alternative school. For the dictionary definition

I am currently working in a public school. Several of my students have been sent to the alternative school for one reason or another, generally in response to some disciplinary issue. Most of them have been very bright kids, who do very good work for me, but got into one too many fights in the lot or something...generally I've been very happy to see them come back to regular school when their penance was over. There's no reason to write them off.

 

[ade32]

As a cultural display (like what you are referring to), yes, of course. As the sole foundation of US law (like Judge Moore was displaying them), no.

Surely the display of the ten commandments is a cultural display in that it recognizes the priciples that the country was founded on? I mean people came here so they could practice their religion freely.

 

[HRE]

Surely the display of the ten commandments is a cultural display in that it recognizes the priciples that the country was founded on? I mean people came here so they could practice their religion freely.

Not as Moore cited it. He claimed that he desired to display it because we, the American citizens had to recognize God and recognize Moses as our Law-giver, when neither is the case.

 

[ade32]

Not as Moore cited it. He claimed that he desired to display it because we, the American citizens had to recognize God and recognize Moses as our Law-giver, when neither is the case.

True. I think if they weren't so heavy handed in this, then they could have kept it there in an historical and cultural context. Its the attempt to ram it and Christianity down people's throats that doesn't sit well.

 

[crazyfingers]

Surely the display of the ten commandments is a cultural display in that it recognizes the priciples that the country was founded on? I mean people came here so they could practice their religion freely.

How do the items below embody the principles on which the country was founded? How do they have anything remotely to do with freedom of religion? If anything they deny freedom of religion. Number 3 is also against freedom of speech.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

 

[ade32]

How do the items below embody the principles on which the country was founded? How do they have anything remotely to do with freedom of religion? If anything they deny freedom of religion. Number 3 is also against freedom of speech.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

They don't in themselves, but they represent the beliefs of the people who founded the country coming here to practice their religion freely. You should have respect for anyone who contributed to the history of this country. Its probably just as valid as a model of the Mayflower standing outside the courthouse. What really is dragging the people supporting it down it that they are presenting it as some kind of religious crusade and that those who oppose it must be godless people because 'we want to impose our religion on everyone'. They are doing it entirely the wrong way and I would suppose that if they presented it as an historic and cultural thing then the monument would stay.

As I said before, I wouldn't blink an eye if they had native american gods or religious beliefs displayed. The display should be out of respect of the history of the country, not to promote a religion.

 

[crazyfingers]

They don't in themselves, but they represent the beliefs of the people who founded the country coming here to practice their religion freely.

I would think that something other than the 10Cs would be a more appropriate way to recognize those who founded the country. The Bill of Richts maybe?

That especially given that the 10Cs do not express freedom of religion. They express the exact opposite.

I'd also note that while many of those who originally colonized what is now the US did come for freedom to practice their religion, they also were brutal theocrats who did not allow freedom of religion to anyone else.

You should have respect for anyone who contributed to the history of this country.

By erecting religious commandments that have nothing to do with what they actually accomplished and in multiple cases deny those accomplishments? The 10Cs deny freedom of religion. In several cases they deny freedom of speech. The 10Cs even deny capitalism given that capitalism is based on coveting.

I'd think that if the intent was to honor the accomplishments of those who founded the country, the 10Cs is possibly the worst thing to choose.

Its probably just as valid as a model of the Mayflower standing outside the courthouse.

I see them as vastly different.

What really is dragging the people supporting it down it that they are presenting it as some kind of religious crusade and that those who oppose it must be godless people because 'we want to impose our religion on everyone'.
They are doing it entirely the wrong way and I would suppose that if they presented it as an historic and cultural thing then the monument would stay.

I believe that for many it is a religious crusade to post the 10Cs.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/politics/main680682.shtml

Rev. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge pastor wrote: "As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government ... our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

Certainly for Judge Moore it was a religious crusade along with a healthy dose of political grandstanding.

As I said before, I wouldn't blink an eye if they had native american gods or religious beliefs displayed. The display should be out of respect of the history of the country, not to promote a religion.

I agree with that but the 10Cs are not there to respect history. They are there in order to promote judeo-christianity and use the government to do it.

But either you admit that the Ten Commandments on public turf make an important religious statement or you pretend they are a piece of our secular history. You can be either unconstitutional or hypocritical.
source

 

[ade32]

I would mostly agree with that. The people advocating the monument aren't doing it because they are honoring the history of the country, but because they are trying to impose Judeo-Christianity on people.

 

[k]

There should be no displays of the TC and there should be no Bibles in US courtrooms. Especially when the actions inside those courtrooms totally contradict both.

 

[Faith In God]

There should be no displays of the TC and there should be no Bibles in US courtrooms. Especially when the actions inside those courtrooms totally contradict both.

Huh. Shut me up.

 

[knuckle50]

The state always endorsed a religion ever since its beginning. It just allows others without persecution. Did you know that the Supreme Court building has the engravings of law people and in the center is Moses and the ten commandments?

Are you saying that makes it right or correct? Because I might note, the state always allowed slavery until it was stopped, always allowed segregation until it stopped, always turned its head when innocent African-Americans were strung up from trees until they stopped it, and always supported marital segregation until... oh, right, we're still working on that one.

You're going to have to do better that "It's always been that way."

Might I note, also, that Americans didn't celebrate Christmas (and it wasn't a federal holiday) until the mid-to-late 19th century (which, coincidentally, is that same time that corporations, legally and structurally, were developed into the structure in which they exist today - hmm, go figure?)

 

[8TarHeel8]

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

I have an observation. We are debating the constitutionality of a religious display (specifically the Ten Commandments) in a courtroom. The 1st Amendment makes no mention of this whatsoever. The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress (a legislative body, not a judge or a court) from passing a law (a religious symbol, display or monument is not a law).

So the question now becomes this: What law did Judge Roy Moore violate? Who's rights were infringed by the monument he had erected?

 

[tollytee]

The Founding Fathers (being the God-fearing deists they were) fashioned much of what the Consitution is after the Ten Commandments. So why is it looked at like an endorsement of a religion instead of just a historical monument in honor of something that affected our country for hundreds of years?

Besides, what harm is it causing to have Ten Commandments (or in that case, any type of ancient law that has affected American politics as did the Ten Commandments) posted in a courtroom? Saying that you're offended because it's an indorsement of religion is pretty ridiculous. How is that hindering anyone from their pursuit of happiness in this country?

It doesn't hinder. It doesn't offend. It doesn't anything. Those on the extreme left like to fight these meaningless battles just so they can go home at night and revel in the self-dilusional idea that they accomplished something great, that they somehow saved America from those pushy, God loving, religious zealots.

If it were that Judges and jurys where using the Ten Commandments as the sole source of their deliberations, judgements and decisions and acted, in all cases, in strict compliance with the commandments, then the left would have a valid argument. But that is not what is happening in our courtroooms today.

The displays are traditional and historical. When the Capitol and the Supreme Court buildings were erected, the architect, with the approval of Congress, included the facade of the lawgiver's and the inscriptions in the marble of the House and Senate, as a symbol of the ideal of a people living under a body of laws. They represented the laws of freedom as well as the laws of personal rights. They have never, in and of themselves, been used to deprive any person from a right or freedom.

It has only been in the last few decades that anyone found anything objectional about the inclusion of the displays in courtrooms or other government buildings. In light of the fact that they can not provide any example or instance where the sole fact that the Commandments were displayed has had an effect which altered, or in any other manner, disrupted that which inevitably came to pass, their arguments are baseless.

In my view, the Ten Commandments are an obstacle to the left. It is a constant reminder of the philosophy that man should be constrained and restricted in his manner and behavior. This idealogical reasoning is anathema to the radical fringe of the liberal movement and it is the last thing they want to be reminded of when they are in a courtroom.

Respectfully

 

[Alarum]

Tolly, there's a difference between a historical display of the 10 commandments, and installing a newly cut 10-ton monument. It's really not hard to see the difference at all. Seriously, you're making a lot of nasty generalizations based on the unacceptable actions of one judge, and a few radical atheists. Not a single "liberal" I talked to has disagreed with the 10 commandments on the wall of the Supreme court, for instance.