Ten Commandments unconstitutional!

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Do the Ten commandments express a particular religious preference?

One of my favorite quotes, ever.

[Gosties]

Fez, it's american, not?

you'r like spain? or it's spanish?

Propaganda gratis de españa

i'm sorry, i'm speak a little inglish

[Ben Kenobi]

Putting stones of religious nonsense on government buildings is infringing on those who are not religious or of different religion.

Tell me how this stone abrogates your right to religious freedom? Are you going to be locked up for not following the Ten Commandments?

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

By this logic, then the 10 Commandments in front of the Supreme Court of Alabama is coercive. It puts people in the position of affirming their 'Christian faith' in front of the court or else face potential retaliation (in the form of bias) from the Court.

Its silly though. The state is creating a situation where peer pressure may be involved? Yet, it allows those who dissent from not saying the pledge at all or saying it without the words 'under God'. That's coercive? Because some idiots may make fun of those that exercise their beliefs? The state isn't responsible for private activities of individuals.

Does this mean that it is coercive to have a Bible to swear upon in Court because people may be coercised into swearing on the Bible even if they are not Christian? Nonsense.

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

There is no difference if you don't have to say the parts of the oath refering to God (just like you don't have to say 'under God' in the pledge).

For an act to qualify under the banner of religious freedom, it must first qualify as an act of freedom.

Why? The Amendment says Congress cannot prohibit the 'free exercise' of religion. It does not say it must be an act of freedom to qualify. Free exercise means you have the ability to exercise your religion freely. This can be read to include human sacrifice if that is part of your religion.

Thankfully Congress has decided that we don't read the Constitition too strictly and thus prevented this absurdity from occuring.

His intent is meaningless since no law is involved...

There doesn't need to be a specified 'law'. Any state action falls under the 1st Amendment now.

Then they wouldn't violate the US Constitution either.

You are nuts. State churchs was WHY the Establishment Clause was in existance in the first place!

Those words on a quarter don't restrict my religious liberty because they make no demand upon me.

Where does the 1st Amendment talk about making a demand on you? It merely prevents the state establishing religion and protects your free exercise of your religion.

[Berzerker]

Fez -

No but I am talking about government buildings where people who are living go to.

That's your proof a chunk of stone makes the US a theocracy?
People who go to that government building can walk right on by that piece of stone without any of their rights being infringed just as I can walk on by a cemetary lined with religious symbols without my rights being infringed.

A Cemetary is for those who die, and they should have their own beliefs respected for the little plot in the ground where they are buried.

Even when they are buried on government property? Remember, you said you have a "right" not to see or hear religious expressions and now you're acknowledging that even the dead should be allowed to "infringe" (your word) upon your "right" to not be subjected to other people's religious beliefs.

You have no right to **** with me or my beliefs. Keep your religious nonsense away from me and those who actually believe in freedom.

You believe in freedom? Don't you support the GOP and the drug war? Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, freedom is not a "right" to remove religious expression from public life.

Putting stones of religious nonsense on government buildings is infringing on those who are not religious or of different religion.

How does it "infringe" upon anyone? Are you claiming just the sight of a religious symbol qualifies as an infringement?

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by 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?

You have had an affair then?

[molly bloom]

Contrary to Rogan Josh’s earlier assertion, Deuteronomy and the Bible are not the origin of English Common Law, or American Common Law.

The Anglo-Saxon settlement of England provided for a break with the rule of Rome and Christianity in England, and the Saxons, Jutes and Angles brought with them their own law system (based on tribal pagan values) which was not based on Judaeo-Christian principles.

Similarly the Norse who settled in the Danelaw, as the name of their kingdoms implies, also brought with them their own legal code, which had provisions still extant post-Norman Conquest. Again, this law code was not based on biblical precepts.

The standardization (or codification) of the various different systems of customary law prevalent in England took place under King Henry II- which brought the Crown into conflict with the Church and canonical law. A notable victim of this conflict being Thomas a Becket. The contest of wills was decided in the Crown’s favour. William of Ockham and Henry de Bracton were the great codifiers and theorists of English mediaeval law.

The Celtic areas of the islands of Ireland and the lands of England and Scotland had different legal systems- in Ireland the Brehon laws (not extinguished fully until the advent of the Tudor rule of Elizabeth I), and in Scotland a mixture of English Common Law (post union) and a legal system dreived from Roman law (Justinian’s) now prevails.

The Hammurabic Code predates the Mosaic ‘miracle’ and indicates (as do Iranian/Persian laws, ancient Hindu laws, ancient Greek laws) the need for any sufficiently large grouping of people to have a standardized legal code. The diorite column featuring Hammurabi’s laws, now in Paris, would have had replicas in public places in Babylon and the city states of the Fertile Crescent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

If anyone is really interested in the basis for English Common Law and its descendant, American Common Law, then go to:

Pollock and Maitland’s ‘The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I ‘ and T. Plucknett’s ‘A Concise History of the Common Law’.

The supposed biblical derivation of the legal systems of the British Commonwealth and the United States (excepting Louisiana and Puerto Rico) is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of Christians. The laws were made by humankind, not humankind for the law.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

By this logic, then the 10 Commandments in front of the Supreme Court of Alabama is coercive. It puts people in the position of affirming their 'Christian faith' in front of the court or else face potential retaliation (in the form of bias) from the Court.

That would be true if Judge Moore et al asked people on trial if they were Christians.

Its silly though. The state is creating a situation where peer pressure may be involved?

Where it is involved.

Yet, it allows those who dissent from not saying the pledge at all or saying it without the words 'under God'. That's coercive? Because some idiots may make fun of those that exercise their beliefs? The state isn't responsible for private activities of individuals.

The state is responsible for putting children in the position of affirming the state's religious belief or facing possible retaliation from students and teachers. Knowing this retaliation is possible is what makes the request coercive. Private peer pressure would be if Johnny the believer asked Joe if he believed in God, not when the teacher asks Joe to stand up in front of others and affirm a belief in God.

Does this mean that it is coercive to have a Bible to swear upon in Court because people may be coercised into swearing on the Bible even if they are not Christian? Nonsense.

Witnesses don't face retaliation for refusing that request, therefore the coercion is non-existent. If a significant number of witnesses who refused were later beat up then it would be coercive. Yes, comparing an adult testifying in a court of law to small children who often do face retaliation for non-compliance is nonsense. But yes, if witnesses are ostracised in the community for not swearing on the Bible, then that court request is coercive too.

There is no difference if you don't have to say the parts of the oath refering to God (just like you don't have to say 'under God' in the pledge).

But what happens when other students discover your omission? Oh, you're an atheist? Hey everyone, Joe's a **** atheist! Jews have been beat up for being Jews and you think the state should be trying to expose people to such retaliation?

Why? The Amendment says Congress cannot prohibit the 'free exercise' of religion. It does not say it must be an act of freedom to qualify. Free exercise means you have the ability to exercise your religion freely. This can be read to include human sacrifice if that is part of your religion.

Imran, words have meanings. If you want to argue that the words "free" and "freedom" have meanings opposite of how the dictionary defines those words, don't expect others to buy into that illogic. I give the Framers credit for understanding the meanings of the words they chose to include in the 1st Amendment.

Thankfully Congress has decided that we don't read the Constitition too strictly and thus prevented this absurdity from occuring.

This "absurdity" is a product of your argument, not mine. Freedom has a meaning and I'm using that meaning. You ignore that meaning and substitute an opposite meaning and then call freedom an absurdity. If the Framers shared your ignorance of the meaning of freedom, why did they word the 1st Amendment that way when, according to you, that would include murder?

There doesn't need to be a specified 'law'. Any state action falls under the 1st Amendment now.

There has to be a law because that's what the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law". It is illogical to claim this monument violates the 1st Amendment when you aren't even using the language in the 1st Amendment.

You are nuts. State churchs was WHY the Establishment Clause was in existance in the first place!

Some of the states had state churches long after the Constitution was ratified. Explain that one. And now you're mixing apples and oranges, the 1st Amendment was added because the "state church" the Founders objected to was the Church of England which did have power over the government. You used the old bait and switch - you cited Scandinavian state churches claiming they had no power over the governments there and are now trying to use those churches as the rationale for why the Founders added the 1st Amendment to the BoR.

Where does the 1st Amendment talk about making a demand on you? It merely prevents the state establishing religion and protects your free exercise of your religion.

That's why the words "Congress shall make no law" cannot be removed from the establishment clause when deciding what does or does not establish religion. The "law" makes demands upon us, the absence of a law = no demand, no demand = no law. If a law does exist, then so does a demand...

[Ben Kenobi]

Molly:

William of Ockham, counts as proof against Christian origins of the law?

I think you need to read up more on the man. He has some huge works, and can be ranked with Augustine and Aquinas in terms of medieval theologians.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Molly:

William of Ockham, counts as proof against Christian origins of the law?

I think you need to read up more on the man. He has some huge works, and can be ranked with Augustine and Aquinas in terms of medieval theologians.

Oh do I? Is the thrust of my argument that William of Ockham is proof that English and American Common Law are non-Christian in origin? He's there as a bit of historical colour, along with Henry de Bracton.

Not even a good troll on your part.

Does Fox News or News International have a religious affairs desk? You may be missing a potential job opportunity, judging by your recent post titles.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The state is responsible for putting children in the position of affirming the state's religious belief or facing possible retaliation from students and teachers. Knowing this retaliation is possible is what makes the request coercive.

So if the state asks people to do something, which they are not required to do so, which may result in some retaliation from other (ignorant) people, then that is the state's fault?

That's silly. You don't have to say the pledge or, even, you can simply strike the words 'under God' when you recite the pledge.

Quakers cannot say any oaths. So are you saying that even with a pledge without 'under God' is wrong because it is coercive on the Quaker kid who is not allowed, according to his religion, to say any oaths?

If you want to argue that the words "free" and "freedom" have meanings opposite of how the dictionary defines those words

Did you fail high school English? FREE EXERCISE has a decidedly different meaning than FREEDOM. Free exercise means that you have the ability to perform your religious beliefs without hinderance.

The illogical position is saying the FREE EXERCISE of religion means any act done is invalid unless it is non-coercive. That makes no sense, even if the term was 'religious freedom', which means you the freedom to do your religion. There is no requirement in the term 'religious freedom' to have freedom WITHIN the religion.

Some of the states had state churches long after the Constitution was ratified. Explain that one.

Simple. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states (hence that whole "Congress shall not" part) until the after the Civil War, during incorporation.

"state church" the Founders objected to was the Church of England which did have power over the government.

You have it bassackwards. The government had power over the Church of England, but the Church had no power over the government. The established Church was basically a department of the government.

There has to be a law because that's what the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law".

The 1st Amendment also says "Congress". Does that mean that the states can pass laws forbidding Jewish worship, say?

[Berzerker]

Imran -

So if the state asks people to do something, which they are not required to do so, which may result in some retaliation from other (ignorant) people, then that is the state's fault?

The state is responsible for creating the situation. My God Imran, how can you argue a piece of stone violates the 1st Amendment when it's just a piece of stone but reverse yourself and argue that the state can "ask" little children to stand up in front of others and affirm a religious belief or face potential retaliation from students and teachers?

That's silly. You don't have to say the pledge or, even, you can simply strike the words 'under God' when you recite the pledge.

You said that already and I responded.

Quakers cannot say any oaths. So are you saying that even with a pledge without 'under God' is wrong because it is coercive on the Quaker kid who is not allowed, according to his religion, to say any oaths?

If the kid has an expectation of retaliation, then it is coercive. A group of Christians already defeated compulsory pledge taking based on religious freedom. Making the pledge "voluntary" ostensibly removed the state from being the party forcing compliance, but it didn't remove the state from the inherently coercive situation it has created.

Did you fail high school English? FREE EXERCISE has a decidedly different meaning than FREEDOM. Free exercise means that you have the ability to perform your religious beliefs without hinderance.

Your english teachers taught you being "free" is the opposite of having "freedom"?

"Free" - Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
Not controlled by obligation or the will of another.

"Freedom" - The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

In both, murder involves being subjected to the will or control of another, therefore the act of murder fails both definitions.

The illogical position is saying the FREE EXERCISE of religion means any act done is invalid unless it is non-coercive.

That's exactly what "free exercise" requires - the absence of coercion.

That makes no sense, even if the term was 'religious freedom', which means you the freedom to do your religion. There is no requirement in the term 'religious freedom' to have freedom WITHIN the religion.

?

Simple. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states (hence that whole "Congress shall not" part) until the after the Civil War, during incorporation.

Which means the states could no longer pass laws respecting an establishment of religion. That isn't what happened with Moore, no law was passed. Even you acknowledged no "specific" law was involved...

You have it bassackwards. The government had power over the Church of England, but the Church had no power over the government. The established Church was basically a department of the government.

If the Church wanted money from the peasantry, who do you think got the money? The government? I'd call that power. Why did you introduce Scandinavian churches?

The 1st Amendment also says "Congress". Does that mean that the states can pass laws forbidding Jewish worship, say?

They could before the 14th Amendment except for the fact the various state constitutions had limits on what the states could do wrt religious freedom and legislation.

[Ned]

I think the Supremes dodged this issue because a state statute was not involved. This was the act of an individual member of a state surpeme court that did not even have the endorsement of his fellow justices. No serious question arose under the 14th Amendment as no state action was involved.

An enterprising ACLU member could raise the issue directly in the US Supreme Court by suing them directly to have the Ten Commandments stricken from their own facade.

[Ancyrean]

Are we missing one point here...

Isn't it the case that if you think of those who fervently argue for keeping the monument there in the courthouse, Christianity is central in their lives?...I mean, they can be classified as religious, right? After all, Buddhists somehow don't fervently press for the retention of the monument, it seems...Isnt this why these religous Christians would like to see an expression of THEIR faith there highlighted in a public place, and that they are outraged for its removal because the US is a country where the majority of the people is Christian and it just doesnt make sense for them to have the state go against what the majority professes? So in their heart of hearts they want the prominency of Christianity registered in whatever subtle way possible?

If so, I thought the US was set up as a country taking lessons from the persecutions done by registered (or official) churches in Europe, that the best safeguard for this never to happen again is never to let a particular faith even SEEM more preferential...And dont tell me how a display of Ten Commandments makes any religion preferential, because I am a Muslim and I clearly see in that monument a decleration of faith...How would some verses from Quran stand there, would it not be a declaration of a "certain" religion? And no, this is not about whether Islam or Buddhism has played any role in the development of the US legal system...This is about if Christianity was influential in the formation of the US how you express that process? Do you have to put up Ten Commandments there to emphasise this evolution? What's next, more verses from the Bible here and there about Justice?

The whole arguement to keep the Commandments in the courthouse seems to me like an attempt to REGISTER Christianity as "more influental" in the US than other religions (as it has been suggested...And as an outsider, I thought that's exactly the kind of registration that the founding fathers of the US sought to prevent?...If you think this is too much of an assertion from an outsider, then correct me about my perception of one of the basic ideas behind the founding principles of the US...

[Ned]

Ancryean, did you know that Mohammed has a statue (IIRC) at the Supreme Court?

No, this is not about the display of Christian symbols. It is about the removal of only Christian symbols. It is an attack by the left on Christianity.