Newsweek's Poll on the 10 Commandments

[Adam's Apple]

"No matter whom I interviewed, the same five or six commandments kept coming up. And no matter whom I interviewed, I heard the same thing: "They should be displayed," said Dan. "They're just the basic rules that everyone can agree on."

"And then I reminded them about the other four or five commandments. One: I am the Lord thy God. Two: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Three: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Four: Keep the Sabbath. And then people started changing their minds."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7120284/site/newsweek/page/2/

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Typical that people walk around with one opinion without knowing all of the facts and how knowing all of them then changes that opinion.

 

[Merlin1047]

Typical that people walk around with one opinion without knowing all of the facts and how knowing all of them then changes that opinion.

What's typical is that lots of people walk around ignorant. Then when they are exposed to a few facts by someone with an agenda, these ignoramuses can be led around by the nose.

Government is not supposed to sponsor a religion. Government is also prohibited from interfering with the free exercise therof. Seems that second part is conveniently overlooked by those who seek to banish any mention of God from the public square. Also conveniently forgotten is the fact that the Constitution itself makes reference to God. Perhaps we need to get the white-out and purge that too.

 

[musicman]

What's typical is that lots of people walk around ignorant. Then when they are exposed to a few facts by someone with an agenda, these ignoramuses can be led around by the nose.
.

Amen, brother. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The business of poll-taking has become so bastardized and politicized that the first thing I want to know is who's conducting it - so I can figure out that organization's particular agenda. A leading turn of a phrase here - a loaded question there - and PRESTO! Your poll arrives, like magic, at whatever preconceived conclusion you had in mind.

It's hell being so jaded, but I find that I wind up with a lot less piss on my boots.

 

[ReillyT]

What's typical is that lots of people walk around ignorant. Then when they are exposed to a few facts by someone with an agenda, these ignoramuses can be led around by the nose.

Government is not supposed to sponsor a religion. Government is also prohibited from interfering with the free exercise therof. Seems that second part is conveniently overlooked by those who seek to banish any mention of God from the public square. Also conveniently forgotten is the fact that the Constitution itself makes reference to God. Perhaps we need to get the white-out and purge that too.

Does the Constitution make reference to god? I didn't think that it did.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Government is not supposed to sponsor a religion. Government is also prohibited from interfering with the free exercise therof. Seems that second part is conveniently overlooked by those who seek to banish any mention of God from the public square. Also conveniently forgotten is the fact that the Constitution itself makes reference to God. Perhaps we need to get the white-out and purge that too.

I think that when a government official is acting qua government official, s/he is representing the government. You admit the goverment is not supposed to sponsor a religion. Therefore I feel that any person acting as the government should not endorse a religion. Examples include a judge placing the Ten Cs above his bench, a postman placing the Star of David on his mail truck, and a fire station displaying a Nativity Scene. Those individuals are there as the government. The free exercise clause clearly allows them to shed their role as a member of the government and exercise religion. Display things at home or on your personal car. But when you are performing a job that is paid through the government, don't endorse religion.

And no, the Constitution does not make reference to God. The founders did that purging for us. You have simply conveniently created that 'fact' for your own purposes.

 

[Gem]

The government of the United States is not establishing nor endorsing a religion by having a display of the ten commandments as a historical reference to one of the beginning influences of our judicial system.
There were, of course, many, many legal codes and systems, religious and non-religious writs, etc. that influenced the formation of this nation...the ten commandments is a part of that, and denying that fact is silliness.

Therefore, there should be no problem with a court-house displaying a statue, monument, etc. displaying the commandments in that historical context...our founding fathers were clear on the government ENDORSING religion (i.e. a judge wearing the ten commandments on his robes while presiding over a court case, or people who want the commandments displayed because they feel the US is a "Christian nation"), however respecting and recognizing the historical influences of our past is not at all the same thing, a we are doing our nation an enormous disservice not to recognize the difference.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Nothing wrong with posting the 10 Cs qua historical monuments. However, they cannot be displayed in any way qua religious monuments.

I believe that most of the court fighting is that you have people such as the Alabama judge who are displaying them as history - wink, wink. Obviously, people are suspect and want to make sure they are not there as religious monuments.

 

[Shattered]

Who gives a rip if they're there? If you don't like it, don't stop and read them. Is putting something on a wall/door *really* infringing on your own religious (or lack thereof) beliefs? The only way I can see being annoyed with it, is if you're so insecure with your own beliefs that you're afraid if you see them too much, they're going to change your mind.. If that's the case, you weren't secure in your own belief.

 

[musicman]

A representative government means just what it says: It is a government of, by, and for the people. A community is governed by...itself! The establishment section specifically orders the federal government to keep its nose out of the matter of religion - it is a community matter, plain and simple. These are the words and intentions of our founding fathers.

To the degree that the 14th Amendment has allowed the federal government - in the person of the courts - to insinuate itself into matters that are clearly none of its business, the 14th Amendment is bad law. Our founding fathers weren't a bunch of sneaky ACLU lawyers. By "Congress shall make no law....", they didn't mean, "But, of course, nobody said anything about the COURTS - wink, wink - nudge, nudge". The American Ideal is under attack, and the weapons are usurpation of the separation of powers, usurpation of states' rights, and usurpation of the U.S. Constitution. We can argue the finer points all day, but surely, anyone who loves liberty can see that our system of government has been perverted. If we don't right our steps, the path leads to tyranny - and the courts will take us there.

 

[Gem]

MJDuncan,

I agree with you that the AL judge may have seen them more as a statement to America's Christian roots rather than as a reminder of the history of the legal system...however, plain and simple...who cares?

Who cares if that one judge looks at the 10 Commandments and is reminded that he is a Christian, who cares if you look at them and are reminded why you would never want to be a Christian, who cares if someone else looks at them and thinks that they could make a really neat counter-top out of the marble that was used to make the monument.

The bottom line is (or at least it should be) as long as the government does not recognize or endorse the monument being there for any other reason then as a historical reminder of the progression of the US legal system...then the case is closed. The argument is NOT whether or not PEOPLE see it as religious...but whether or not the US Gov't does.

Since the US Gov't does NOT see it that way and is in NO WAY endorsing the establishment of religion...then the monuments should be allowed to stay.

 

[ReillyT]

A representative government means just what it says: It is a government of, by, and for the people. A community is governed by...itself! The establishment section specifically orders the federal government to keep its nose out of the matter of religion - it is a community matter, plain and simple. These are the words and intentions of our founding fathers.

To the degree that the 14th Amendment has allowed the federal government - in the person of the courts - to insinuate itself into matters that are clearly none of its business, the 14th Amendment is bad law. Our founding fathers weren't a bunch of sneaky ACLU lawyers. By "Congress shall make no law....", they didn't mean, "But, of course, nobody said anything about the COURTS - wink, wink - nudge, nudge". The American Ideal is under attack, and the weapons are usurpation of the separation of powers, usurpation of states' rights, and usurpation of the U.S. Constitution. We can argue the finer points all day, but surely, anyone who loves liberty can see that our system of government has been perverted. If we don't right our steps, the path leads to tyranny - and the courts will take us there.

You might feel that the 14th amendment is too much of an infringment on the rights of the states and municipalities to adopt their own rules and practices, but I think that the 14th amendment does a lot of other wonderful things that most of us would agree with. It incorporates the first ten amendments to the states, so a state must have criminal and civil trials by jury, must have a warrant before searching your house, can't prevent your free expression, etc. Even if you disagree with this one application of the Bill of Rights to the States, the 14th amendment does protect citizens from state governments in a number of wonderful ways. . . IMO.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You might feel that the 14th amendment is too much of an infringment on the rights of the states and municipalities to adopt their own rules and practices, but I think that the 14th amendment does a lot of other wonderful things that most of us would agree with. It incorporates the first ten amendments to the states, so a state must have criminal and civil trials by jury, must have a warrant before searching your house, can't prevent your free expression, etc. Even if you disagree with this one application of the Bill of Rights to the States, the 14th amendment does protect citizens from state governments in a number of wonderful ways. . . IMO.

The "equal protection" clause of the XIV Amendment does not mean that everything needs to get thrown back to the SCOTUS when there is some picky question about hanging a picture in a courthouse - although I am sure that the commie lites of the ACLU would disagree with me. Their arguments are specifically targeted to turn on very narrow fine teensy weensy legal points that can only be found on the head of a pin and which totally disregard the greater picture, i.e., the government is actually not establishing any type of religion and it never has, despite the fact that these monuments et al have been in the courthouses for centuries.

I have yet to hear how the 10 Commandments hanging in a courtroom actually or specifically hurts anybody.

 

[musicman]

You might feel that the 14th amendment is too much of an infringment on the rights of the states and municipalities to adopt their own rules and practices, but I think that the 14th amendment does a lot of other wonderful things that most of us would agree with. It incorporates the first ten amendments to the states, so a state must have criminal and civil trials by jury, must have a warrant before searching your house, can't prevent your free expression, etc. Even if you disagree with this one application of the Bill of Rights to the States, the 14th amendment does protect citizens from state governments in a number of wonderful ways. . . IMO.

I want to speak carefully here and not misrepresent you. But, haven't you yourself admitted that there are problems and ambiguities in the wording AND interpretation of the 14th Amendment? I submit that these ambiguities are being exploited by those who wish less than well to our way of life. I think the Amendment needs to be re-examined in the context of the abuse it has allowed.

 

[manu1959]

"No matter whom I interviewed, the same five or six commandments kept coming up. And no matter whom I interviewed, I heard the same thing: "They should be displayed," said Dan. "They're just the basic rules that everyone can agree on."

"And then I reminded them about the other four or five commandments. One: I am the Lord thy God. Two: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Three: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Four: Keep the Sabbath. And then people started changing their minds."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7120284/site/newsweek/page/2/

it doesn't say which god or religion.....you shouldn't take people's names in vain it is not polite.....i ain't working sunday.....dumb people are so literal....thinking words or lack of words will keep them "safe"...

 

[musicman]

I think I'm beginning to put my finger on what it is about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that bothers me. Somehow, the courts have been able to make the leap from, "Congress shall make no law..." to "No government at ANY level shall make a law...". This is clearly in error. Worse, it disregards the simple fact that, at the lower levels, the people ARE the government. This misinterpretation allows the federal government to circumvent a community's constitutional protection from centralized government by the very MEANS of that protection!

It is tyranny in its most sneaky and underhanded sense!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I think I'm beginning to put my finger on what it is about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that bothers me. Somehow, the courts have been able to make the leap from, "Congress shall make no law..." to "No government at ANY level shall make a law...". This is clearly in error. Worse, it disregards the simple fact that, at the lower levels, the people ARE the government. This misinterpretation allows the federal government to circumvent a community's constitutional protection from centralized government by the very MEANS of that protection!

It is tyranny in its most sneaky and underhanded sense!

Exactly! And so we wind up with 5 or 6 people controlling ALL of us.

That's tyranny alright or should we say, legislating from the bench?

 

[musicman]

Yes, the Bill of Rights should apply in all states. However, the leap from the establishment section to "separation of church and state at every conceivable level of government" is pure fantasy - and, rather obviously, agenda-driven fantasy at that. Who's doing all the screeching? Who is always the villian?

The matter of religion - along with many other matters into which the courts are poking their tyrannical little noses - was left out of the hands of the federal government by our founding fathers. This was done for good reason. These are community matters. That's the whole point of self-government.

 

[musicman]

Exactly! And so we wind up with 5 or 6 people controlling ALL of us.

That's tyranny alright or should we say, legislating from the bench?

Exactly. The American Revolution might as well have never taken place!

 

[ReillyT]

I want to speak carefully here and not misrepresent you. But, haven't you yourself admitted that there are problems and ambiguities in the wording AND interpretation of the 14th Amendment? I submit that these ambiguities are being exploited by those who wish less than well to our way of life. I think the Amendment needs to be re-examined in the context of the abuse it has allowed.

There are ambiguities. First, the most obvious way that the 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights would be in the section of the 14th amendment that says states cannot deprive individuals of the "privileges and immunities" of federal citizenship. That section, however, was rendered meaningless by Supreme Court decisions in the 1870's that were aimed at preserving the rights of state governments to keep black people from voting, etc. Then, decades later, the USSC rhad to resurect the meaning of the amendment by using the Equal Protection clause to say that, in fact, the States really can't deprive persons of federal rights and immunities. Second, the amendment refers to states, but the Supreme Court has applied it to municipality governments as well. I think there are good reasons to do so, but I am not sure if the text makes it clear that this is necessary. (It might, does anyone know if municipal governments are considered as sub-units of state governments? I have no idea.)

On top of that, there is ambiguity in what the First Amendment really means and to what extent it extends to matters like nativity decorations and the like. Does the establishment clause mean that the government can have nothing to do with any religion or religious symbols? I think that this is exactly what it means (with a couple of common sense exceptions) because I think it is the surest way to make sure that government also stays out of the way people practice their religions privately, but reasonable minds could definitely differ on this issue.

Anyway, lots of issues. I do like the 14th Amendment though. I think it does add a lot of protections for individual persons from the government.