Ten Commandments unconstitutional!

[Berzerker]

Imran, The Pledge is not required, but it is coerced nonetheless. It's the same principle underlying the constitutional prohibition on religious tests... And an alternative (non) oath of office was devised for those who objected to oath taking based on the teachings of Jesus and they were Christians, so wouldn't you call the oath of office a de minimis restriction too?

if anything is a de minimis restriction on the freedom of religion.

Being coerced into affirming a religious belief you don't share is a "de minimis restriction"? Would Christians tolerate a Pledge asking their children to affirm a belief in the supremacy of Satan? "Congress shall make no law", not Congress shall make de minimis restrictions. Do you know why many early Christians were martyred in Rome? Because they were asked to affirm the existence and supremacy of the Roman gods and they considered that "minimal restriction" to be abhorent.

Placing a ton of concrete with the 10 Commandments in front of a STATE COURTHOUSE, with the intent to proclaim this is a 'Christian nation', is an establishment.

His intent is irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact that a piece of stone makes no demands, forced or coerced, on anyone. That's why "In God We Trust" on coinage is constitutional, that too states a preference of religion but makes no demands upon us.

Fez -

Keep this trash away from public places

Do you hiss and bear your fangs when walking by churches?

[POTUS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Pledge is not required and if anything is a de minimis restriction on the freedom of religion. Placing a ton of concrete with the 10 Commandments in front of a STATE COURTHOUSE, with the intent to proclaim this is a 'Christian nation', is an establishment.

In my state, California, we are required to say the pledge everyday, or engage in other "suitable patriotic activities" for five minutes. Now, as my teachers are complete idiots, and can't dream up any "suitable patriotic activities", we are required to say the pledge.

Also, the words "under god" were added to signify that this was a Christian nation, unlike the atheist Soviet Union.

[Asher]

When I lived in California we never had to say the Pledge.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's the same principle underlying the constitutional prohibition on religious tests

Um... no... There is a prohibition on religious tests because that is an obvious violation of the freedom of religion. You can't be hired unless you are the specified religion.

What 'coercion' does the Pledge accomplish? Are people forced to be Christians by the simple act of listening to it? No, of course not. People are coerced into saying 'under God'? So the federal government is now responsible for private peer pressure? It is illegal to force it to be said, that is good enough. If students 'coerce' the saying of "under God" then its simple peer pressure. The government is not a nanny state to prevent things like that.

so wouldn't you call the oath of office a de minimis restriction too?

Yep

Being coerced into affirming a religious belief you don't share is a "de minimis restriction"? Would Christians tolerate a Pledge asking their children to affirm a belief in the supremacy of Satan? "Congress shall make no law", not Congress shall make de minimis restrictions.

Yes, and who cares if the Christians would tolerate it, if it had 'under the Dark Lord' that's a de minimis restriction as well.

And we've already gone over the 'Congress shall make no law'. If you contend the Constitution isn't flexible at all, then Churches are free from any law. They may violate building codes, they may engage in human sacrifices (if that is a principle of the religion - remember there is no Constitutional right to life), etc. That is a dark road that no one wants to start on.

The Court long ago contended that there were de minimis restrictions on Constitutional 'rights' that would not be actionable, because they are such a minor infringment that it doesn't matter. I think this is the most prudent and intelligent route. A stiff Constitution would result in a country that would break easily (if not over slavery than definetly over something else).

His intent is irrelevant

No it isn't. His intent is everything. He intended to declare the Christian faith is Alabama's faith. What do you think an establishment of religion is? It is any act intended to say one religion is the state religion.

After all, a state church, such as the ones in Scandinavia (which have no power over the government), makes no demands on anyone.

what is relevant is the fact that a piece of stone makes no demands, forced or coerced, on anyone. That's why "In God We Trust" on coinage is constitutional, that too states a preference of religion but makes no demands upon us.

Actually the SCOTUS ruled "In God We Trust" is a de minimis violation of the establishment clause. I simply can't understand how someone can say a voluntary pledge makes a demand on someone, but "In God We Trust" on currency doesn't. I'd argue that 'God' on currency makes MORE of a demand than a voluntary pledge. Both are somewhat endorsements of a religion, but it being on currency is more important than a throw away phrase in a pledge (which can easily be omitted if wished).

[Berzerker]

Imran -

There is a prohibition on religious tests because that is an obvious violation of the freedom of religion. You can't be hired unless you are the specified religion.

I said the principle is the same, not every aspect of the restriction. So, what's stopping a person from ascribing to the established religion to hold office? It's the same thing, abide by the majority's (state's) de minimis restriction to get along.

What 'coercion' does the Pledge accomplish? Are people forced to be Christians by the simple act of listening to it? No, of course not. People are coerced into saying 'under God'? So the federal government is now responsible for private peer pressure? It is illegal to force it to be said, that is good enough. If students 'coerce' the saying of "under God" then its simple peer pressure. The government is not a nanny state to prevent things like that.

It isn't "private peer pressure". The state is creating the situation in which "peer pressure" is employed to obtain this religious affirmation. Surely you can see that the state asking children to stand up and affirm the supremacy of "God" in front of other children who already share that belief puts non-believers in the position of lying about their own beliefs or facing potential retaliation from other children as well as the teachers and school administrators making the request.

Yep

Then what's the difference? Both the oath of office and the Pledge are "de minimis" restrictions on religious liberty.

Yes, and who cares if the Christians would tolerate it, if it had 'under the Dark Lord' that's a de minimis restriction as well.

They would care. And they wouldn't tolerate that infringement on their religious liberty either, so why do so many Christians seek to coerce other people's children into affirming religious beliefs they don't share?

And we've already gone over the 'Congress shall make no law'. If you contend the Constitution isn't flexible at all, then Churches are free from any law. They may violate building codes, they may engage in human sacrifices (if that is a principle of the religion - remember there is no Constitutional right to life), etc. That is a dark road that no one wants to start on.

For an act to qualify under the banner of religious freedom, it must first qualify as an act of freedom. Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, murder (human sacrifice) is a constraint...the Pledge is coercive... Neither qualify under the definition of freedom, therefore neither qualify as religious freedom. Try telling Christians they can no longer read the Bible because we don't allow human sacrifice and they will point out the difference between acts of freedom and acts that violate freedom...

The Court long ago contended that there were de minimis restrictions on Constitutional 'rights' that would not be actionable, because they are such a minor infringment that it doesn't matter. I think this is the most prudent and intelligent route. A stiff Constitution would result in a country that would break easily (if not over slavery than definetly over something else).

Yes, the SCOTUS reads "Congress shall make no law" and they see "Congress shall make de minimis laws". In fact, the SCOTUS has gone much further even allowing for the prohibition of certain religious practices because they lack the majority's permission. The SCOTUS is a group of political hacks appointed and confirmed by the very same people who ignore the Constitution when it suits them. James Madison wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting nominated much less confirmed to the SCOTUS.

No it isn't. His intent is everything. He intended to declare the Christian faith is Alabama's faith. What do you think an establishment of religion is? It is any act intended to say one religion is the state religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." His intent is meaningless since no law is involved...

After all, a state church, such as the ones in Scandinavia (which have no power over the government), makes no demands on anyone.

Then they wouldn't violate the US Constitution either.

Actually the SCOTUS ruled "In God We Trust" is a de minimis violation of the establishment clause.

A "violation" or "restriction"? Those words on a quarter don't restrict my religious liberty because they make no demand upon me.

I simply can't understand how someone can say a voluntary pledge makes a demand on someone, but "In God We Trust" on currency doesn't. I'd argue that 'God' on currency makes MORE of a demand than a voluntary pledge. Both are somewhat endorsements of a religion, but it being on currency is more important than a throw away phrase in a pledge (which can easily be omitted if wished).

The Pledge is not voluntary, it is coerced. Words on a coin don't ask me to stand in front of believers and profess their belief or risk retaliation.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yay!

Yay!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I dunno. I'm all for the state establishing religion, as long as it goes with the religion of the majority.

Of course, within the next 25 years or so, that religion will be Catholicism.

"One nation, under God and Our Holy Pontiff, Pope of Rome,..."

[MikeH]

The United States commitment to guaranteeing the religious freedom of its citizens is a great example to the rest of the world. Good to see that right being supported.

USA!

[Q Classic]

i like the pope.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i like the pope.

Oh, so do I. And I'd like giant statues of St. Francis of Asisi to greet the visitors to our national parks. Of course, I'd also like the Feast day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin to be a federal holiday. And now that I think of it, I'd very much like our Olympic archery team to have images of the martyrdom of St. Sebastian on their uniforms -- but I'm not sure that's within the power of the government.

[Bereta_Eder]

Do you know they even sell toilet papers with the Pope in Rome outside the St. Peter's cathedral? I thought that was "funny".

[Rogan Josh]

If someone was to found a religion that claims Lincon was God, would you have to remove him from your notes?

Having a monument showing Moses with the comandments is not expressing a choice of religion. It is merely acknowledging the cultural root of modern law.

[MikeH]

So that's why you get locked up for worshipping false idols, disrespecting your parents or adultery?

No. Murder and theft were illegal before moses left Egypt and they are the only two that are in any way relevant to modern law.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh Having a monument showing Moses with the comandments is not expressing a choice of religion. It is merely acknowledging the cultural root of modern law.

First, as che pointed out, Deuteronomy is not the primary source of contemporary American law.

Second, this was not a statue of Moses the Lawgiver (in fact, a bas relief of Moses adorns the Supreme Court Building, where he is in the company of other lawgivers like Hammurabi; this presents no problem). This was the text of the Ten Commandments -- a specificly religious text, which presents the law from within a particular religious tradition (Middle Eastern Monotheism). The fact that the Law of Moses is not the Law of the U.S. only further compounds the problem; we don't keep holy the Sabbath day, nor prohibit blasphemy or envy. And above all, we don't affirm that the Judeo-Christian god is God, and command people to worship him first and foremost. So to place a text that suggests these things in a state courthose is indeed a problem, as SCOTUS rightly saw.

[Stuie]

The only commandments that could be prosecuted are:

Killing.
Stealing.
Bearing false witness.

I have "broken" all of the others without committing an illegal act. So why should this text be displayed in any government building?