The Ten Commandments

[ReillyT]

But, my government is telling me PRECISELY that, in a voice that becomes more strident and insistent every day.

The government isn't telling you that your religion is wrong and not to practice it. The government is saying "We are not in the business of religion, discuss it amongst yourselves privately." The absence of religious symbols does not promote secularism. It merely takes a hands-off approach to the entire question. It doesn't tell you that your god is the right god. It doesn't tell you that your god is the wrong god. It doesn't tell you there is no god. It merely says, whatever you believe (jew, christian, atheist, etc.), it is not our policy to discuss it, endorse it, or prohibit it. Go home, or to your church, or to some public forum and discuss it there.

 

[ReillyT]

I have to go. Nice chatting with you.

 

[musicman]

As I have stated before, I am no legal scholar. However, here is how the situation shakes out - as clearly and logically as I can see it.

The U.S. Constitution clearly states that Congress (the branch of government which enacts laws) has no business making any laws establishing a state religion.

Further, the Constitution states that any power not granted specifically to the federal government automatically reverts to the states, or to the people.

Ergo, matters of behavior such as religion are clearly the province of individual communities to decide for themselves.


However we managed to get from there to the place where a Federal judge can forbid my little community from displaying the Ten Commandments, a Nativity scene, or anything else it deems appropriate, is the degree to which we have strayed from the clear intent of our founding fathers. This is where the work of restoring our way of life must begin.

 

[musicman]

I have to go. Nice chatting with you.

Same here. Later, dude.

 

[no1tovote4]

The public has the right to express itself in any open-public forum - the press, through a parade, a march, in the park, etc. The right to free expression doesn't mean that the public as a whole can push its majority view on the minority in government no matter what percentage of the public feels that way. The first amendment doesn't just protect the rights of people to express themselves, it protects minority beliefs from oppression by majority beliefs. You're right, if the law was that only secular expression was allowed, that would be impermissible. However, once again, the banner over the judge's bench would be a promotion of secular belief, the absence of any expression about the ends of human life or endeavor (i.e., transcendental beliefs) is merely a lack of government discussion of this topic.

However a law to remove all banners above the bench would be an endorsement of another religion, Secular Humanism. As I said before, there can be no endorsement nor the removal of all religious context from the Public Expression. It is an Inclusive Right, not an Exclusive Right. There can be no endorsement of a specific religion, including the exlusion of all religion, or Secular Humanism which has already been established as a religion by the SCOTUS. If you remove all other expression and do not allow the free expression of the beliefs you have endorsed the only religion left, that of Secularism. This would be a De Facto endorsement of a specific religion and would be unconstitutional. If in fact the populace wanted to include religious documents in a historical context the argument should be to include more than one religion, not to exlude all religions and thus by inaction endorse Secularism as the law of the land.

Just absolutely, completely and utterly wrong. The "Public as a whole (the same as the government)" does not have the same right to free expression as individuals. The government cannot endorse or establish a religion and the cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, while a person can establish a religion and can prevent people outside his religion from walking into his house. That is the essence of the First Amendment. If you say that the government is the same as the Public and that the public is the same as the private, and that all three are equally given the right to practice their religion, the the First Amendment doesn't mean anything. The government cannot practice religion, it can't endorse it, and it can't prohibit you from exercising it.

The Government can also not take away the right of free expression, from the same Amendment that you attempt to use to deny that expression. If society as a whole judges the historical context of religious documents to be salient the Government cannot make a law to remove them. This would be an endorsement of Secularism (already ruled as a religion by the SCOTUS) by the Government as much as it would if the Government made a law to only include a specific religion in that expression.

I actually don't know if a judge can where a Ten Commandment pin. There is a grey area in that jduges do discuss values and it is unclear where these values come from. That is a function of the fact that people hold values, based upon a number of sources. I agree that it is possible for a person to follow the law even where it contradicts their religious beliefs. However, in order to demonstrate the impartiality of the judiciary, it has been held that clear expressions of religious beliefs are forbidden. I think this is a good thing, because I wouldn't want a Mulsim judge with a posting of Islamic law around his courthouse judging me. Even if he were going to be fair, I would question his impartiality, and that is bad for the judiciary.

This has actually not been ruled on yet. In this I just express my personal belief. However I have heard judges speak on the morality of a subject even as they ruled the opposite way. They do have a right to speak their opinion in matters, I see no conflict so long as they follow the law, which they did.

I once again think you are utterly misinformed and mistaken if you think that the First Amendment protects the government's exercise of religion. It was supposed to have exactly the opposite purpose. As to the historical argument, sure, the Ten Commandments have a historical significance. So, by that measure do many other religious documents. That doesn't take away from their religious connotations. The question of whether their religious or historic connotations determine whether they are allowed or not is currently being debated. However, both the Koran and the Ten Commandments have religious purposes and historical significance. If someone were to place a monument to the Koran in front of the court steps, I would question that it was placed their for historical reasons - which would probably just be sham reasons to place a religious symbol where they wanted it. I see no reason not to hold the Ten Commandments to the same inquiry.

I think you misunderstand what I am calling the Public. They own the building and have a right to expression, the same right they are extended as individuals.

I see no reason not to hold the Koran to the same scrutiny as well. As I said before this right is inclusive not exclusive. In order to allow for the mistaken belief in endorsement it would be necessary to include more rather than to exclude specif documents. To order all religion excluded is once again an endorsement of Secularism, a religion as ruled by the SCOTUS.

It should be argued to include other documents of historical significance such as the Koran or Buddhist symbolism rather than to exclude one specific or all religious context simply because it is religious. The Free expression does extend to the populace who does own the particular buildings, etc. The extension of free speech most definitely includes the populace, the owners of the building.

If we are including documents or art of specific connotation to the law, it would be necessary to include more rather than to specify exclusion against the free expression of the populace.

 

[deaddude]

According to that America is at an empass, by not supporting any of the traditional religions we are supporting Secularism, by supporting any of the traditional religions we are supporting those religions. We are Constitutionaly screwed.

 

[Bonnie]

ReillyT

Once again, I disagree that the absence of religion is the same as promoting secularism. The banner stating "There is no god but man. Be secular." would be promoting secularism, but the absence of any statement about religious belief (or the lack thereof) doesn't promote anything.

True technically, however when there is a specific movement on the part of secularists to remove almost any and every trace of religion from the public forum, that can also be seen as an attempt to foster that secularism upon the rest. Additionally some of these same secularists use tactics such as impuning and denograting those that are religious as part of their argument in an attempt to create an underlying disdain for those religious implying religious people are just too religious to look at any matter pragmatically. This tends to alianate quite a few of the American population.

How can you have two countries in one? Most people I know vote for the politician with whom they believe espouses their morals and ideals best, and usually that means someone religious or someone who has religious underpinnings. Secularists don't win elections, as evidenced by Kerry in the latter days of his campaign, he's Catholic, no he's not, he's Catholic today in front of this group, and secular in front of NOW/ NARAL. Hillary has suddenly found spirituality and morality, why because she wants to be president. My point is there is no real way to seperate religion form government. All we can do is uphold the Consititution the best way can. Whether we admit it or not, every judge that is appointed to the bench will bring his or her religious beliefs or lack there of with them whether they have the Ten Commandments posted or not. They may not base all their decisions on religion, most likely they will however approach each case with a moral foundation that get's it's roots in their religion or spirituality.

 

[Bonnie]

According to that America is at an empass, by not supporting any of the traditional religions we are supporting Secularism, by supporting any of the traditional religions we are supporting those religions. We are Constitutionaly screwed.

That's why common sense has to prevail in this matter.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Reilly, you know what the secular humanist libs think of christians : "knuckle dragging, idiotic, slaves of Bush, whose opinions should be ignored." You can read quotes like this all day long from the leftist chatroom of your choice. Please get into the real world and abandon your defense of these thought police.

 

[no1tovote4]

According to that America is at an empass, by not supporting any of the traditional religions we are supporting Secularism, by supporting any of the traditional religions we are supporting those religions. We are Constitutionaly screwed.

Not necessarily. By not creating a State religion but allowing people to express their religion we would not be screwed. In order to be equal there must be representation if it is wished and can be shown in the context of the display. Of course in this context it would need to pass the muster of whether it is historically salient to the specific institution as that is the context in which it is presented. Secularism would certainly need to be represented, all it would take is looking into some of the writing of Jefferson to realize that there is a historical context. In this case some of the writing of Jefferson could be displayed, etc. To simply exclude all and thereby showing support of only one you have de facto endorsed secularism.

The Right to Free Expression is clearly inclusive rather than exclusive. So is the right to Free Speech. To simply say that there would be no way to show this stuff in this context without violation would be incorrect, however to remove them all in the pretext of religion would be a violation of the Free Expression clause.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The government isn't telling you that your religion is wrong and not to practice it. The government is saying "We are not in the business of religion, discuss it amongst yourselves privately." The absence of religious symbols does not promote secularism. It merely takes a hands-off approach to the entire question. It doesn't tell you that your god is the right god. It doesn't tell you that your god is the wrong god. It doesn't tell you there is no god. It merely says, whatever you believe (jew, christian, atheist, etc.), it is not our policy to discuss it, endorse it, or prohibit it. Go home, or to your church, or to some public forum and discuss it there.

You really need to pay closer attention to what your very stupid line of thinking can do to our country in a very real sense. Just remember that we, the people, ARE the government. And most of us ARE religious, and you can't separate the religion from the people who ARE the government.

For example, that kind of stupid thinking is what allows the teaching of grade school children about anal sex in the classroom when they should be learning about mathematics. Most parents DON'T want their children learning about anal sex. Why? Well, I guess it's because they have religious morals. However, since most secularists do NOT have religious morals, they think it's just spiffy to teach those young'uns about the joys of anal sex and promote homosexuality and other immoral behaviors. They are able to get away with it because they don't allow for the religious beliefs of the parents to get in the way of their agenda - all in the name of "separation of church and state". This is part of a nihilistic movement that the majority of we, the people, want no part of.

Can you now see where snuffing out religious beliefs from the public square can lead to? Because "religious beliefs" of parents would not be allowed in the public classroom, the secularists would have a free hand to fill the minds of our children with all kinds of immoral behaviors and beliefs. This is how a country is broken and taken over by communism/fascists/totalitarians who, by the way, are almost all secular in their belief systems. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[ReillyT]

You really need to pay closer attention to what your very stupid line of thinking can do to our country in a very real sense. Just remember that we, the people, ARE the government. And most of us ARE religious, and you can't separate the religion from the people who ARE the government.

For example, that kind of stupid thinking is what allows the teaching of grade school children about anal sex in the classroom when they should be learning about mathematics. Most parents DON'T want their children learning about anal sex. Why? Well, I guess it's because they have religious morals. However, since most secularists do NOT have religious morals, they think it's just spiffy to teach those young'uns about the joys of anal sex and promote homosexuality and other immoral behaviors. They are able to get away with it because they don't allow for the religious beliefs of the parents to get in the way of their agenda - all in the name of "separation of church and state". This is part of a nihilistic movement that the majority of we, the people, want no part of.

Can you now see where snuffing out religious beliefs from the public square can lead to? Because "religious beliefs" of parents would not be allowed in the public classroom, the secularists would have a free hand to fill the minds of our children with all kinds of immoral behaviors and beliefs. This is how a country is broken and taken over by communism/fascists/totalitarians who, by the way, are almost all secular in their belief systems. Coincidence? I think not.

There are so many posts to respond to, I think I will just espouse my own thoughts and not even try to answer all of the questions. However, I do think applying the notion that because the government is voted on by the people, most of whom hold religious beliefs, the government is the people, is really quite dangerous. The people have the right to practice and preach their religious beliefs from dawn to dusk. The government does not have the right to practice religion, to proselytize religion, endorse religion, establish religion, or "to prohibit the free exercise thereof." Individual people do have these rights, just not the government. I think the framers of the Constitution were very wise to restrict the government in such a way.

Now for my opinion. I think it is silly and a waste of resources and energy to try to remove "in god we trust" from the currency or "one nation under god" from the pledge. I think people that do that have too much time on their hands. However, I believe in the principle that government should take a hands-off approach to religion, and shouldn't be allowed to endorse it in any way. I think this is the approach that best preserves the freedom of religion for all persons (by keeping the government completely out of it). Therefore, if people want to bring these sillly lawsuits, I think they should win them unless the courts can come up with some other principle to allow these expressions while silmultaneously keeping government out of the business of religion altogether. Courts have been trying to balance these issues for years (coming up with de minimus tests and historical significance tests, and so on).

Secularist and religious people who fight about silly things like statements on currency actually share the same general concern. Secular people think that government is getting too close to adopting christian religious principles and is acting in a way that discriminates against their right not to be religious. They mistakenly see evidence of this in government efforts to prohibit abortion, gay marriage, etc. They fail to see the distinction between value judgments by religious people and the endorsement of religion itself, and consequently feel that the government is becoming hostile to their non-belief. Many religious people, on the other hand, see efforts at taking statements on currency and prohibiting prayer in schools as efforts to discriminate against their religion. They mistakenly see the government becoming hostile to Christian religious beliefs, where in fact it is really an attempt by non-religious people to protect their right to not believe. What they both want is a government not hostile to whatever it is they believe.

It is because of crazy nuts railing about the pledge of allegiance and other crazy nuts saying things like "they think it's just spiffy to teach those young'uns about the joys of anal sex and promote homosexuality and other immoral behaviors," that people get worked up about an issue that is less important than either really believes it to be. I don't think the government is hostile to religion anymore than I think it is hostile to non-religious belief. I just wish that before people get even more worked up by this nonsense, the government could just say "we don't care about what you think religiously or non-religiously, take it to the park, the church or the dinner table and debate it there."

As for things like sex-ed, I think studies have shown it is generally a good idea, but if the majority of parents don't want it taught (while I think this is a mistake), go ahead and take it out of the schools on the basis that it is not appropriate for children, not because one religious sect or the other disagrees with it.

 

[ReillyT]

Reilly, you know what the secular humanist libs think of christians : "knuckle dragging, idiotic, slaves of Bush, whose opinions should be ignored." You can read quotes like this all day long from the leftist chatroom of your choice. Please get into the real world and abandon your defense of these thought police.

I agree that many secularists believe this crap. On the other hand, people like screaming eagle think that everyone who desires a strict separation of church and state just want to teach kids to be homosexual. Both beliefs are foolish and silly.

 

[ReillyT]

ReillyT



True technically, however when there is a specific movement on the part of secularists to remove almost any and every trace of religion from the public forum, that can also be seen as an attempt to foster that secularism upon the rest. Additionally some of these same secularists use tactics such as impuning and denograting those that are religious as part of their argument in an attempt to create an underlying disdain for those religious implying religious people are just too religious to look at any matter pragmatically. This tends to alianate quite a few of the American population.

How can you have two countries in one? Most people I know vote for the politician with whom they believe espouses their morals and ideals best, and usually that means someone religious or someone who has religious underpinnings. Secularists don't win elections, as evidenced by Kerry in the latter days of his campaign, he's Catholic, no he's not, he's Catholic today in front of this group, and secular in front of NOW/ NARAL. Hillary has suddenly found spirituality and morality, why because she wants to be president. My point is there is no real way to seperate religion form government. All we can do is uphold the Consititution the best way can. Whether we admit it or not, every judge that is appointed to the bench will bring his or her religious beliefs or lack there of with them whether they have the Ten Commandments posted or not. They may not base all their decisions on religion, most likely they will however approach each case with a moral foundation that get's it's roots in their religion or spirituality.

I really think it is important to maintain the appearance of impartiality in the judicial system, even if each judge keeps his own beliefs and biases while putting on his cloak. Even if judges were always impartial, the credibility of the judicial system is injured by percieved biases as much as by real ones. It is important for everyone entering a courtroom to believe that the judge in front of them is impartial and neutral. Otherwise, people see injustice where no injustice may in fact exist, and the legal system takes on a sham quality even if it is undeserved.

 

[no1tovote4]

I really think it is important to maintain the appearance of impartiality in the judicial system, even if each judge keeps his own beliefs and biases while putting on his cloak. Even if judges were always impartial, the credibility of the judicial system is injured by percieved biases as much as by real ones. It is important for everyone entering a courtroom to believe that the judge in front of them is impartial and neutral. Otherwise, people see injustice where no injustice may in fact exist, and the legal system takes on a sham quality even if it is undeserved.

Which is why we are tried by Juries, not even professional Juries but those of our peers. This makes it so the bias of the Judge cannot effect the trial as much as they may want to.

As I said before I personally have heard Judges give their opinion on the morality of the subject at the same time telling people it was not illegal and setting the Defendant free. The assumption that having a personal opinion eliminates all judges from the bench is absurd and clearly impossible. A Ten Commandments sign does not change the law, nor does it even necessarily reflect the view of the Judge sitting on the bench. It is simply a historical document that is set before us to think upon when entering say the SCOTUS or another courtroom where they are displayed by action of those who own the building, the populace. The argument would be better served to include secular documents, or other religious documents that are historically salient, such as some of the writings of Jefferson than it is to say we should exclude all documents thus de facto setting forward secularism only as the religion of the nation. I say again the Right of Free Expression is inclusive, not exclusive.

Saying we are protecting your right by not allowing anybody the right to Free Expression is absurd. Instead of including other documents in order to allow others the same right of expression you attempt to even the field only by removing the Expression of others and thus creating a more secular, and what you may believe to be pure, government but definitely one that is invading and killing the actual right of free expression.

 

[ReillyT]

Which is why we are tried by Juries, not even professional Juries but those of our peers. This makes it so the bias of the Judge cannot effect the trial as much as they may want to.

As I said before I personally have heard Judges give their opinion on the morality of the subject at the same time telling people it was not illegal and setting the Defendant free. The assumption that having a personal opinion eliminates all judges from the bench is absurd and clearly impossible. A Ten Commandments sign does not change the law, nor does it even necessarily reflect the view of the Judge sitting on the bench. It is simply a historical document that is set before us to think upon when entering say the SCOTUS or another courtroom where they are displayed by action of those who own the building, the populace. The argument would be better served to include secular documents, or other religious documents that are historically salient, such as some of the writings of Jefferson than it is to say we should exclude all documents thus de facto setting forward secularism only as the religion of the nation. I say again the Right of Free Expression is inclusive, not exclusive.

Saying we are protecting your right by not allowing anybody the right to Free Expression is absurd. Instead of including other documents in order to allow others the same right of expression you attempt to even the field only by removing the Expression of others and thus creating a more secular, and what you may believe to be pure, government but definitely one that is invading and killing the actual right of free expression.

Not all proceedings in courts involve juries. Some trials do not even warrant a jury. Even where defendants have the right to a jury trial, many prefer an impartial judge with a better understanding of the law than a jury that must be educated in it. Even where there is a jury, judges have enormous influence in the proceedings.

The right of free expression is not absolute, and persons in their roles (of course they have the same rights as anyone else when they take off their robes) as government officials do not possess an unlimited right to free expression. As private individuals we have much more freedom of expression, and a private individual can place a monument to the Koran, or the Ten Commandments, or anything else they want on their front yard. Nothing here limits the rights of individuals.

As for allowing religious symbols for the historical significance, I personally am okay with that, provided that it is not a sham to get around the prohibition against religious symbols on government property. I would think it is illegal if there is a 20 foot monument to the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse coupled with a 1 foot plaque referring to Hammurabi's Code in the back of the courthouse. However, provided the symbol, whatever it is, is actually part of a historical display, proportioned in a reasonable way, I have no problems.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not all proceedings in courts involve juries. Some trials do not even warrant a jury. Even where defendants have the right to a jury trial, many prefer an impartial judge with a better understanding of the law than a jury that must be educated in it. Even where there is a jury, judges have enormous influence in the proceedings.

The right of free expression is not absolute, and persons in their roles (of course they have the same rights as anyone else when they take off their robes) as government officials do not possess an unlimited right to free expression. As private individuals we have much more freedom of expression, and a private individual can place a monument to the Koran, or the Ten Commandments, or anything else they want on their front yard. Nothing here limits the rights of individuals.

As for allowing religious symbols for the historical significance, I personally am okay with that, provided that it is not a sham to get around the prohibition against religious symbols on government property. I would think it is illegal if there is a 20 foot monument to the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse coupled with a 1 foot plaque referring to Hammurabi's Code in the back of the courthouse. However, provided the symbol, whatever it is, is actually part of a historical display, proportioned in a reasonable way, I have no problems.

There is no constitutional prohibition against religious symbols on public property. This is a false meme perpetrated by an activist, religion hating, left wing judiciary that's gotten too big for it's britches. The truth will set you free.

 

[ReillyT]

There is no constitutional prohibition against religious symbols on public property. This is a false meme perpetrated by an activist, religion hating, left wing judiciary that's gotten too big for it's britches. The truth will set you free.

I appaud you on that thoughful, well-reasoned argument, and the certain conclusions which you are able to draw from this complex issue. It certainly gives me much to think about.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I agree that many secularists believe this crap. On the other hand, people like screaming eagle think that everyone who desires a strict separation of church and state just want to teach kids to be homosexual. Both beliefs are foolish and silly.

Did I strike a nerve? I gave you an example, not a blanket accusation like you claim. Of course, you ignored the example I gave which is a true scenario resulting from the stupid liberal beliefs on this subject. Obviously you'd rather not face any of the real facts as to what is actually happening in our schools as a result of secular beliefs taking over.

Of course, nobody wants to establish a religion anywhere. In that sense, our country is "secular". However, we DO want to exercise our religious beliefs as individuals anywhere we damn well want to. We want to and we have the right to express our beliefs anywhere from In God We Trust on our money to The Commandments hung on our courthouse walls to under God in our pledge to the curriculums approved by the school boards.

Of course secular people have exactly the same rights as religious people to express their personal opinions in the public square. However, certain secularists are attempting to legally drum all religious opinions out of the public square. The parsing and nitpicking is getting intolerable.

For over 200 years there was absolutely no problem in our country with God in the public square. Along come the liberal commie lites led by the ACLU and all of a sudden it's a "problem". Connect the dots....

 

[ReillyT]

Did I strike a nerve? I gave you an example, not a blanket accusation like you claim. Of course, you ignored the example I gave which is a true scenario resulting from the stupid liberal beliefs on this subject. Obviously you'd rather not face any of the real facts as to what is actually happening in our schools as a result of secular beliefs taking over.

Of course, nobody wants to establish a religion anywhere. In that sense, our country is "secular". However, we DO want to exercise our religious beliefs as individuals anywhere we damn well want to. We want to and we have the right to express our beliefs anywhere from In God We Trust on our money to The Commandments hung on our courthouse walls to under God in our pledge to the curriculums approved by the school boards.

Of course secular people have exactly the same rights as religious people to express their personal opinions in the public square. However, certain secularists are attempting to legally drum all religious opinions out of the public square. The parsing and nitpicking is getting intolerable.

For over 200 years there was absolutely no problem in our country with God in the public square. Along come the liberal commie lites led by the ACLU and all of a sudden it's a "problem". Connect the dots....

Did you give an example? There was some blathering on about homosexuals or something, but I disregarded it as incoherent rambling.

Are there people who go overboard because they have too much time on their hands and try to change the pledge? Sure. But it is not the instances that matter, it is the principles behind these silly exhortations that should be remembered and cherished.

As for the beliefs of individuals and the public square. . .
Individuals do not have the right to erect monuments on government property. Only the government and its representatives may do that. Try it once and you will see. However, on public property (and pretty much all public places that aren't in use by the government including the sidewalk in front of the courthouse or even the courthouse steps), courts have always held that individuals speaking, rallying, yelling, carrying signs, or anything else short of erecting permanent displays (which require government permission) is permissible. That has never changed.

I appreciate that you want the Ten Commandments posted in the courtroom, but whether that should be permitted, and what it means to our cherished beliefs about government and religion and the extent they should be permitted to intertwine is another issue - perhaps a more complicated issue than you can comprehend.