A Victory For Freedom

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by skywalker


Your example is wrong. "Not selling booze on Sundays" is completely free of religious connotation (even if it was derived from the rules of a religion), thus it is perfectly constitutional. Give a correct example, and you'll be right. But I don't think there is one...

"Blue"laws prohibiting businesses from opening on sundays?

BTW, I don't see how the TC's violate the establishment clause anymore than the government invoking God by name in any other venue. I always thought the establishment clause simply prevented the government from establishing a national church or specific, officially sanctioned religion. Seems a bit overinterpreted.

[MrFun]

DinoDoc -- my latest post is at the bottom of page 1 in case you miss it.

[CerberusIV]

Surely the point here is that not everyone is smart enough to dismiss this piece of stone as irrelevant, or to debate it on poly. It is likely that some people, who are not christians, will take it to mean that they will be less favourably treated in that court that a christian (and with a judge like the idiot who had it put up they may have a point).

That means that they perceive themselves under pressure to adopt a christian religion in order to obtain fair justice. That is not a situation of "freedom from religion". Sounds like the right decision has been made.

[gunkulator]

It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines when you place the 10 commandments outside of a courthouse. Gee, what could it possibly mean? Kinda like the blindfolded woman holding the scales.

In any case, public property is subject to public policy. There's no shortage of private property to plunk down this kind of thing. Freedom of expression doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want whereever you want whenever you want however you want.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MrFun


So what's the difference if capital punishment is murder?

The porblem is that "murder" is defined as illegal killing. By definition that excludes capital punishment. And this is clear in the bible, given what the punishements for various acts are, many of which lead to death.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Damn... GePap beat me to it .

[PLATO]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

So because this guy is a judge, he can't practice his religion?

He did not seek to establish a religion (and even if he did, he is not the Congress)

He was excersizing his right to free speech (Which the government quashed)

BTW, The ten commandments are not "Christian", they are Jewish and Christian.

Realistically, it is not a good idea for a judge to push his religious agenda, but unconstitutional? This is another example of the court imposing its social agenda upon the people.

As to the "establishment" clause...where does it address religion?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by PLATO1003

So because this guy is a judge, he can't practice his religion?

Sure he can, however judicial rulings in the past have ruled that if practicing your religion equates to sticking it in everyone's face, you are in fact denying the other guy his freedom of religion.

He did not seek to establish a religion (and even if he did, he is not the Congress)

What do you call posting religious laws in a place that exists to uphold secular law? Again the judge is the one making the association between his religion and his secular duties.

He was excersizing his right to free speech (Which the government quashed)

Free speech has never been an absolute right. For instance, you can't hold Christian services in a Synagogue. Public property is subject to public policy.

BTW, The ten commandments are not "Christian", they are Jewish and Christian.

Oh, well, that's alright then...

As to the "establishment" clause...where does it address religion?

Er, you quoted it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

[GePap]

The courthouse is public property, not private property of the judge, and the judge is an agent of the court, a court which is part of the government. In his official duties as judge he can't be making religious pronouncements.

[PLATO]

I don't disagree that this is public policy or that it is a good policy. I simply state that this was not a constitutional issue. It is the court setting social policy that made it a constitutional issue

Again the judge is the one making the association between his religion and his secular duties.

But making an association is not the establishment of a religion. Furthermore, Congress is the only entity constitutionally prevented from establishing a religion.

Free speech has never been an absolute right. For instance, you can't hold Christian services in a Synagogue. Public property is subject to public policy.

I agree. This situation should be addressed with the same laws that control your example. It is not a constitutional issue.

Er, you quoted it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Er, That's the 1st Amendment not the establishment clause.

GePap:

The courthouse is public property, not private property of the judge, and the judge is an agent of the court, a court which is part of the government. In his official duties as judge he can't be making religious pronouncements.

I agree. The point I am trying to make is that the court overstepped its mandate when calling this a constitutional issue. This is social engineering by the court and that is not what they were designed to do. (Even if I agree with the outcome, I will disagree with the process!)

[chequita guevara]

This particular judge has long been a problem in Alabama, which of course, has made him extremely popular there. I'm sure Bush will try and appoint him to SCOTUS.

[Sava]

But making an association is not the establishment of a religion. Furthermore, Congress is the only entity constitutionally prevented from establishing a religion.

are you serious? tell me you made a mistake typing this... Does that mean Congress is the only entity that is prevented from violating free speech, expression, etc... Bullsh1t

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Every government entity must follow it.

Berz, Floyd: aren't you guys state's rights advocates? I'm sure if the SCOTUS struck down the dry laws, you'd be screaming bloody murder for state's rights. Give me a break.

[PLATO]

Sava, did you even read my first post? Apparently not from your answer. I also quoted EXACTLY what the constitution says.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
I don't disagree that this is public policy or that it is a good policy. I simply state that this was not a constitutional issue. It is the court setting social policy that made it a constitutional issue

Nope, it's a constitutional issue.

"SECTION 3

Religious freedom.
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles
"
Don't recognize it? I didn't either until a few minutes ago. It's from Alabama's state constitution.

But making an association is not the establishment of a religion

It is a de facto establishment as opposed to a explicitly stated establishment. Because law can't cover every particular point, we have courts to inject doses of reality. This is the essence of a real justice system, one that can see through technicalities.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Er, That's the 1st Amendment not the establishment clause.

NO!!!! What you are referring to (wrongly) as the "establishment clause" is the preamble. The establishment clause is the part of the first amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"