Here is one case where both sides got it wrong:
Neither the majority opinion nor the minority’s grievance addresses monuments maintained with tax dollars. Common sense would satisfy both sides.
The city of Bloomfield could sell the few square yards of public land holding the Ten Commandments monument to people willing to pay for its maintenance. There is a precedent for a land sale. See this thread for a lot more details:
Socialists Declared War On The Cross
A variation of the Mojave Cross ruling could be applied to religious plaques, statues, etc. in public buildings by charging a reasonable maintenance fee paid for with voluntary contributions. After all, how much could it cost to dust off a physical item every once in a while?
NOTE: Contributing to an organized religion is generally voluntary or it should be. Not so with collectivist ideology irrespective of which name it goes by.
More to the point, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the U.S. Supreme Court, are wrong. There is no such thing as a philosophical “. . . passive monument,. . .”.
Incidentally, the Constitution does not make any references to non-religion beliefs. I always took that to mean that Colonial Americans understood the danger to liberty inherent in organized religion(s).
Finally, the XVI Amendment is the missing component in “. . . historical understanding . . .”:
It was ludicrous for the dissenting judges to argue that settlers escaping from the tyranny of organized religion in Europe brought a tax on income to the new world. Colonial Americans never considered a tax on income, nor could they see that huge amounts of tax dollars enriching churches under one guise or another were set in motion in 1913. Worst of all is raiding the public purse to fund political causes.
If our judges want historical understanding they might make an effort to understand parasites throughout history who always demanded that government take care of everybody collectively. Throughout history a few men advanced civilization by working for themselves irrespective of the form their government’s took. Thousands of years passed before freedom from religion gave every man the Right to care for himself and his loved ones first. Free Americans were the first citizenry to see the immutable wisdom in freedom to work for one’s self. The difference between parasites and free people identifies the eternal conflict between oppression and liberty. Howard Roark (Ayn Rand) says it best:
The majority of the court refused a request for a rehearing in the case Jane Felix and B.N. Coone vs. city of Bloomfield, N.M.
In the case, the city had a Ten Commandments monument on the lawn of its city hall. Two observers complained that it violated the First Amendment, and the court ordered the city to remove it.
Jonathan Scruggs of the Alliance Defending Freedom contended, however that Americans “shouldn’t be forced to censor or whitewash religion’s role in history simply to appease the emotional response of two offended individuals with a political agenda.”
“As the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, a passive monument, such as this display of the Ten Commandments, accompanied by others acknowledging our nation’s religious heritage cannot be interpreted as an establishment of religion. This court’s order failed to recognize ‘the historical understanding of what an establishment of religion is and what the First Amendment actually prohibits.’ Because of this misinterpretation of the law, we are consulting with our client to consider their options for appeal.”
In the case, the city had a Ten Commandments monument on the lawn of its city hall. Two observers complained that it violated the First Amendment, and the court ordered the city to remove it.
Jonathan Scruggs of the Alliance Defending Freedom contended, however that Americans “shouldn’t be forced to censor or whitewash religion’s role in history simply to appease the emotional response of two offended individuals with a political agenda.”
“As the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, a passive monument, such as this display of the Ten Commandments, accompanied by others acknowledging our nation’s religious heritage cannot be interpreted as an establishment of religion. This court’s order failed to recognize ‘the historical understanding of what an establishment of religion is and what the First Amendment actually prohibits.’ Because of this misinterpretation of the law, we are consulting with our client to consider their options for appeal.”
Neither the majority opinion nor the minority’s grievance addresses monuments maintained with tax dollars. Common sense would satisfy both sides.
The city of Bloomfield could sell the few square yards of public land holding the Ten Commandments monument to people willing to pay for its maintenance. There is a precedent for a land sale. See this thread for a lot more details:
Supreme Court: Mojave cross can stay
Land transfer to private hands mitigates constitutional issues, justices say
The Associated Press
updated 4/28/2010 4:32:55 PM ET
Supreme Court: Mojave cross can stay
Land transfer to private hands mitigates constitutional issues, justices say
The Associated Press
updated 4/28/2010 4:32:55 PM ET
Supreme Court: Mojave cross can stay
Socialists Declared War On The Cross
A variation of the Mojave Cross ruling could be applied to religious plaques, statues, etc. in public buildings by charging a reasonable maintenance fee paid for with voluntary contributions. After all, how much could it cost to dust off a physical item every once in a while?
NOTE: Contributing to an organized religion is generally voluntary or it should be. Not so with collectivist ideology irrespective of which name it goes by.
More to the point, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the U.S. Supreme Court, are wrong. There is no such thing as a philosophical “. . . passive monument,. . .”.
Incidentally, the Constitution does not make any references to non-religion beliefs. I always took that to mean that Colonial Americans understood the danger to liberty inherent in organized religion(s).
Finally, the XVI Amendment is the missing component in “. . . historical understanding . . .”:
“This decision continues the error of our Establishment Clause cases,” they wrote. “It does not align with the historical understanding of an ‘establishment of religion’ and thus with what the First Amendment actually prohibits.”
They noted that the settlers to America mostly came from countries that had established churches supported by taxes. That also was the norm in the American colonies, they said, even after the Revolution.
They noted that the settlers to America mostly came from countries that had established churches supported by taxes. That also was the norm in the American colonies, they said, even after the Revolution.
Dissenting judges rip colleagues' 10 Commandments ruling
Posted By Bob Unruh On 02/11/2017 @ 7:36 pm
Dissenting judges rip colleagues’ 10 Commandments ruling
Posted By Bob Unruh On 02/11/2017 @ 7:36 pm
Dissenting judges rip colleagues’ 10 Commandments ruling
It was ludicrous for the dissenting judges to argue that settlers escaping from the tyranny of organized religion in Europe brought a tax on income to the new world. Colonial Americans never considered a tax on income, nor could they see that huge amounts of tax dollars enriching churches under one guise or another were set in motion in 1913. Worst of all is raiding the public purse to fund political causes.
If our judges want historical understanding they might make an effort to understand parasites throughout history who always demanded that government take care of everybody collectively. Throughout history a few men advanced civilization by working for themselves irrespective of the form their government’s took. Thousands of years passed before freedom from religion gave every man the Right to care for himself and his loved ones first. Free Americans were the first citizenry to see the immutable wisdom in freedom to work for one’s self. The difference between parasites and free people identifies the eternal conflict between oppression and liberty. Howard Roark (Ayn Rand) says it best:
Last edited: