Ten Commandments in Courtrooms?

[knuckle50]

I'm wondering what everyone's justifications are for this? Is it not state endorsement of a religion?

 

[Deamiter]

Moved to a better home from Creation and Evolution.

 

[HRE]

I actually just did an essay on the placement of the Decalogue by itself in a courtroom as a foundation of law, as Judge Moore claimed his was.

The distinction needs to be drawn between that case and a larger cultural display, like the Supreme Court's portrayal of lawgivers.

As of the printing date of this newsletter, the United States Supreme Court has entered its third day of deliberations on the Constitutionality of public displays of the Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue. This verdict (whenever they feel the pressing need to reach it…) promises to be a vital forecast for the future of the separation of church and state in this nation.

The main source of conflict in this debacle lies in the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This phrase and all the laws concerning it make up what we know today as the ‘Establishment Clause’ – intended to keep our government from meddling in religion, and perhaps more importantly to keep our religion from meddling in our government. To figure out whether or not something violates the Establishment Clause, our courts use the Lemon and Endorsement test, among others which do not apply to this case.

I intend to demonstrate that prominently displaying the Decalogue in government buildings, especially houses of law, violates the Establishment Clause on both counts. I will assume that you are familiar with the Decalogue. If not, I have placed them on the front page for easy reference.

The Lemon test (arising from Lemon vs. Kurtzman in 1971) states that the action (or display) in question must have a bona fide secular purpose. In response to this, many argue that the Ten Commandments are founding principles of American law. I would politely recommend that you review Commandments I, II, III, and IV before making such an assertion – I don’t quite recall the United States ever being a monotheistic theocracy, as is prescribed by the First commandment.

The fact is that United States law rests on English Common Law and the Roman Laws, found in the Twelve Tables. US law is designed to make a crime a matter of individual versus society, rather than society versus family (as is prescribed in Exodus 20:5). The argument that our laws are based on the Decalogue simply falls apart when you recognize that the six we do respect are universal dictates of moral behavior, from as far back as recorded history allows. The Decalogue, alone and in its entirety, obviously has no secular purpose.

I might remind you at this point that the government display of the Decalogue must only fail one of the tests to be unconstitutional. It has failed the first, but we’ll give it a try with the second test.

The Endorsement test is much simpler. It states that an action is in violation of the EC if it appears to an objective observer that the government is endorsing or disapproving a religion. I might remind you once again of the First Commandment. This commandment specifically endorses the three Abrahamaic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Combined with the second amendment, it disapproves of all polytheistic views and a variety of other religions, including Buddhism and Deism. The Decalogue, by merit of those two commandments alone (and I could go on…) fails the Endorsement test immediately. The government display of the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment Clause and is distinctly unconstitutional. This leaves only one argument left: majority rule.

Over 75% of people in the United States are Christian. If the United States were a democracy in which majority ruled, this case would present no problem. If the United States were a democracy in which majority ruled, the Civil Rights movement would have never succeeded. Nor would the Suffrage movement, or any other number of civil battles. As Bovard said: “Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

I wonder what would happen if I were to decorate public offices with oh, say, little buddha statues that had the 5 precepts on them? Better yet, a painting of, oh say Nietzsche with the caption "Whoever has overthrown an existing law of custom has always first been accounted a bad man: but when, as did happen, the law could not afterwards be reinstated and this fact was accepted, the predicate gradually changed; - history treats almost exclusively of these bad men who subsequently became good men!"

 

[tweek821]

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?

 

[HRE]

The Founding Fathers (being the God-fearing deists they were) fashioned much of what the Consitution is after the Ten Commandments

How, specifically, are the first four commandments pertinent to United States Law?
How are the latter six unique to the Ten Commandments?

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?

See, there's an essay about two posts up. It is generally considered a courtesy to read a thread before responding.

 

[Stellar Vision]

What I'm seeing in the arguments made by supporters of the Ten Commandments is that the Decalogue deserves special recognition above other religions because it supposedly is a historical document. However the idea that the Ten Commandments are a basis for US government is more of an opinion than a historical fact. The claim that our, meaning everyone's, rights are derived from God is strictly a theological argument, and not something that the government has the ability to resolve.

 

[knuckle50]

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?

Our Founding Fathers did not build the country on the basis of religion and certainly not Chrisitanity. They based it on the notion of religious freedom. The Founding Fathers were not religious, and in most cases found religion to be one of the most dangerous threats to the newly founded country.

The problem arises when someone with serious questions about religion lives in a society that fosters and endorses religion. If you grow up seeing those pillars all over the place, you are more likely to become a Christian. The First Amendment allows freedom FROM religion, not just freedom OF religion.

 

[AirPo]

The Founding Fathers (being the God-fearing deists they were) fashioned much of what the Consitution is after the Ten Commandments.

Could you point out which oportions of the Constitution are fashioned after the Ten Commandments?

 

[OhhJim]

It's my understanding that, before the Ten Commandments were given, that it was ok to kill people, steal from them, and so on. Only AFTER Moses received them was it considered wrong to do so.

Of course I'm being facetious. The Commandments are no more a basis for American law than are Hammurabi's Codes.

As for the OP, I would have no problem with displaying them in the context of showing the history of the country, i.e. the historical fact that many early settlers were Christians who were fleeing persecution. Of course, I think they should show the historical fact that these same Puritans punished the Indians for not keeping the Sabbath holy, but maybe that's just too much truth, eh?

 

[tweek821]

How, specifically, are the first four commandments pertinent to United States Law?
How are the latter six unique to the Ten Commandments?



See, there's an essay about two posts up. It is generally considered a courtesy to read a thread before responding.

I say that people who freak out about little things in life like seeing Ten Commandments written on a building are the same kind of people who shake a restaurant manager to death over a hair in their soup. They need to get over it and stop wanting everyone to be so politically correct.

I have to deal with offenses daily but do I go get some malicious group like the dastardly ACLU to fight for me to make sure I'm not offended? No, because it's called shrugging things off. If a government building has Ten Commandments, or the Five Noble Truths, or anything...get over it.

 

[knuckle50]

I say that people who freak out about little things in life like seeing Ten Commandments written on a building are the same kind of people who shake a restaurant manager to death over a hair in their soup. They need to get over it and stop wanting everyone to be so politically correct.

I have to deal with offenses daily but do I go get some malicious group like the dastardly ACLU to fight for me to make sure I'm not offended? No, because it's called shrugging things off. If a government building has Ten Commandments, or the Five Noble Truths, or anything...get over it.

yeah, why should we care about these little constitutional violations... who cares?

especially when they use that dastardly group established for the purpose of protecting peoples' rights, the ACLU!

Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, and John Adams helped to write the Constitution. What would you think about me erecting huge stone tablets with the following quotes on them:

Common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England …about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century. …We may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful, evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus… will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. … It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [forming the U.S. government] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. …Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery… are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.

I would assume you woulde object to those. Rightly so. The government cannot endorse secularism nor any religion. But would erecting huge stone tablets with these quotes on them be any different from "Thou shalt have no other gods before me,"? What's the difference? Both are based on "historical documents" - My quotes certainly much more than yours.

 

[MKalashnikov]

Common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England …about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century. …We may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

I like Jefferson, but guess what, Court Cases at the time make quite clear that Jefferson's contention is inaccurate at best.

Supreme Court of New York 1811, in the Case of the People V Ruggles, 8 Johns 545-547, Chief Justice Chancellor Kent Stated:

The defendant was indicted ... in December, 1810, for that he did, on the 2nd day of September, 1810 ... wickedly, maliciously, and blasphemously, utter, and with a loud voice publish, in the presence and hearing of divers good and Christian people, of and concerning the Christian religion, and of and concerning Jesus Christ, the false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous words following: "Jesus Christ was a *******, and his mother must be a harlot," in contempt of the Christian religion. .. . The defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of $500.

The Prosecuting Attorney argued:

While the constitution of the State has saved the rights of conscience, and allowed a free and fair discussion of all points of controversy among religious sects, it has left the principal engrafted on the body of our common law, that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.

The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court:

Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law. In Taylor's case the defendant was convicted upon information of speaking similar words, and the Court . . . said that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths. And in the case of Rex v. Woolston, on a like conviction, the Court said . . . that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government. . . . The authorities show that blasphemy against God and . . . profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings . . . because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church. They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society. . . .

We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only ... impious, but . . . is a gross violation of decency and good order. Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful.. ..

The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious' opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile ... the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. . . . We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].. .. [We are] people whose manners ... and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.

Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment. . . . This [constitutional] declaration (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. . . . To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. . . . Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. . . . The Court are accordingly of opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed:
[that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings].

The Supreme Court of NY in the case of Lidenmuller V The People, 33 Barbour, 561 Stated:

Christianity...is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. The fact is everwhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, and well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1824, in the Case of Updegraph V The Commonwealth 11 Serg. & R. 393-394, 398-399, 402, 507 (1824) recorded the Courts Declaration that:

Abner Updegraph . . . on the 12th day of December [1821] . . .not having the fear of God before his eyes . . . contriving and intending to scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth, in the Presence and hearing of several persons ... did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say . . . : "That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies." To the great dishonor of Almighty God, to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian religion.

The jury . . . finds a malicious intention in the speaker to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, and this court cannot look beyond the record, nor take any notice of the allegation, that the words were uttered by the defendant, a member of a debating association, which convened weekly for discussion and mutual information... . That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity, indecency and scurrility ... I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows, and young women for the brothel, and there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such debating clubs as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city. .. . It was the out-pouring of an invective, so vulgarly shocking and insulting, that the lowest grade of civil authority ought not to be subject to it, but when spoken in a Christian land, and to a Christian audience, the highest offence conna bones mores; and even if Christianity was not part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country, an insult on which would be indictable.

The assertion is once more made, that Christianity never was received as part of the common law of this Christian land; and it is added, that if it was, it was virtually repealed by the constitution of the United States, and of this state. . . . If the argument be worth anything, all the laws which have Christianity for their object--all would be carried away at one fell swoop-the act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery ...for all these are founded on Christianity--- for all these are restraints upon civil liberty. ...

We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection--the constitutionality of Christianity--for, in effect, that is the question. Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church ... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.

Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This is the Christianity of the common law . . . and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. . . . In this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity . . . without which no free government can long exist.

To prohibit the open, public and explicit denial of the popular religion of a country is a necessary measure to preserve the tranquillity of a government. Of this, no person in a Christian country can complain. . . . In the Supreme Court of New York it was solemnly determined, that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that to revile the Holy Scriptures was an indictable offence. The case assumes, says Chief Justice Kent, that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted on Christianity. The People v. Ruggles.

No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws--a general, malicious and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity. Without these restraints no free government could long exist. It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government. They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.... Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep. .. it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws. . . .

Christianity is part of the common law; the act against blasphemy is neither obsolete nor virtually repealed; nor is Christianity inconsistent with our free governments or the genius of the people.

While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country; these two privileges are directly opposed.

 

[knuckle50]

I can find numerous decisions from that era also affirming slavery. Irrelevant. Newer rulings have proven those ones false.

One of the defendants said, "Jesus Christ was a *******, and his mother must be a harlot."

While I disagree quite a bit with the sentiment, and think it's inflammatory and unnecessary, I would fight to protect his right to say it.

Besides, the issue there is not the sentiment expressed by them. Christians argue that the facts of the Ten Commandments and their religious nature are irrelevant because they are historical documents. So are these.

 

[tweek821]

especially when they use that dastardly group established for the purpose of protecting peoples' rights, the ACLU!

Come on, friend...you're making them out to sound better than they really are. "Protecting people's rights"...bah! That's what liberals want everyone to think but the plain truth is that they constantly take away personal liberties from normal Americans to ensure that small minority groups and whacked-out activists don't ever get offended throughout the duration of their lives.

Since when have we had the right to never be offended? Exactly...people need to suck it up and stop running to "mommy" (ACLU) and try to make it look like it's protecting their freedoms.

 

[HRE]

That's what liberals want everyone to think but the plain truth is that they constantly take away personal liberties from normal Americans to ensure that small minority groups and whacked-out activists don't ever get offended throughout the duration of their lives.

Stinkin' Civil Rights movement, American Revolution, and Women's Suffrage movement...

 

[tweek821]

Stinkin' Civil Rights movement, American Revolution, and Women's Suffrage movement...

So I guess supporting the ACLU compares with Civil Rights and Woman's Suffrage now? Sad, isn't it...

To compare such historical events to the ACLU's battle to legalize child pornography, legalize drugs, make tax exemptions for Satanists, legalize prositution, legalize abortion-on-demand, allow public demonstrations by Nazis and Communists, legalize polygamy, and (my favorite) support busing.

Riiiiight...please don't try and make connections between two very different things.

 

[knuckle50]

legalize child pornography

haven't heard about that one, but if it's true (doubtful) i disagree.

legalize drugs

because the war on drugs is going sooo great... honestly, I'm a 15 year old kid in a a white (sortof)upper class suburban town and everyone knows exactly where to get the pot.

doesn't affect anyone but the users, so why not make it legal?

make tax exemptions for Satanists

If they consider themselves a religion, seems to me as if they have the same right to tax ememption as christians. (whether anyone deserves exemption is another issue, i say no)

egalize prositution

i'm pretty sure they haven't done it, but it's yet another victimless crime that we focus resources on while practically ignoring the real war on terror

legalize abortion-on-demand

right on

allow public demonstrations by Nazis and Communists, legalize polygamy

Are these not fundamental rights under the constitution? would you prefer we send in the national guard and mow down the demonstrators and imprison the polygamists?

support busing.

Inner city african-american kids from dorchester and roxbury are bused into my high school in westwood, MA and I have no problem with it. They are generally very nice people who enjoy increased educational opportunities by being in one of the top few Massachusetts school districts. And they take advantage of it. I know a number of people who now have the ability to go to colleges who otherwise wouldn't have. It also increases tolerance of the kids growing up in our town and decreased the educational disparities between minority and white students.

 

[HRE]

And all the cases in which the ACLU supports Christians whose Civil Rights are being infringed upon?

 

[tweek821]

If they consider themselves a religion, seems to me as if they have the same right to tax ememption as christians. (whether anyone deserves exemption is another issue, i say no)

Funny, because the ACLU is actually fighting against any sort of Christian institution receiving tax exemptions.

Inner city african-american kids from dorchester and roxbury are bused into my high school in westwood, MA and I have no problem with it. They are generally very nice people who enjoy increased educational opportunities by being in one of the top few Massachusetts school districts. And they take advantage of it. I know a number of people who now have the ability to go to colleges who otherwise wouldn't have. It also increases tolerance of the kids growing up in our town and decreased the educational disparities between minority and white students.

Obviously, you have not been to my city and seen what has happened to the schools. Since busing, after-school programs and even some nicer classes had to be cut to pay for the busing.

The high school my mother graduated from has gone down hill to being nothing more than an alternative school for pregnant teens and ex-convict high schoolers...all due to busing. How do I know this, because it began crumbling to nothing the year busing started.

Also, as a personal side note...before high school, I was not anywhere near "racist" and had many black friends. Today, I still have many black friends but going to a school with busing has made me more prejudice. That's my personal experience with busing and I'm sure there are many out there who have experienced the same thing.