Ten Commandments unconstitutional!

[Ben Kenobi]

He's there as a bit of historical colour, along with Henry de Bracton.

So then the law in its current form, even from your sources does owe somewhat to Christian principles. I don't think anyone here claimed that the entirety comes from Christianity.

As for the job with Fox News, why would they want a pacifist anywhere near their coverage?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Congress opens it's sessions with prayer, does that "infringe" upon your "right" to have a "secular" government?

Since congress doesn't enforce its religious preference, it doesn't infringe such a right.
But I find it very awkward that congress begins his sessions with a prayer. The religious preference of your country is clearly stated, and it looks very wrong to me.
Now, the day where a sessions will begin with a prayer for each religion present and the US (plus whatever display of atheism), I'd have no problem with it

[Ancyrean]

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

It cannot be Mohammed, depictions of him are strictly forbidden in Islam, so actually there's not even a popular face of Mohammed as is the case with Jesus, but I get your point, if you mean there's a statue of some Islamic figure at the Supreme Court, as a sign of impartiality towards religion.

Originally posted by Ned
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.

Actually, the dynamics of this topic is quite familiar with me, as in Turkey there are similar arguements in response to the strictly secular nature of the Turkish state, so I can make some comparisons. For example, it's a big issue in Turkey if women should be ALLOWED to wear headscarves (in many Muslim countries it's FORBIDDEN to take it off!) in public offices, as this would constitute an expression of a religious belief, and would be contrary to the commitment of the state not to be partial towards any religion...

Without distracting too much from the topic, I just want to say that I understand the arguement for the removing an object that puts down one of the basic tenets of a certain faith from public office space (as opposed to a graveyard, as it has been put in this thread), if that country is committed to being impartial with regard to religion. For the strong followers of any religion in question, it might look as an attack on the religion concerned, whereas the impartial nature of a state demands that you refrain from any displays that implies a connection to that religion. (This is different from portraits of Moses...Imagine some Quranic verses forbidding theft, for example, as opposed to some portrait of an Islamic scene from history).

So, the core of the issue here is, if you are against the secular nature of a state, you should say it so instead of trying to reason with acts stemming from a tradition of impartiality with regards to religion...If you are against the removal of the Ten Commandments from a public office of such high stature, you should question the merits of secularism and the seperation of state and religion, instead of trying to prove it doesnt violate the secular principles of the state (I assume the US to be a secular country, my arguements would be moot if I have the wrong idea about this). Otherwise, its removal is, without any doubt, what is demanded by a state governed through principles of secularism...

[Berzerker]

Ancryean -

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'm not a Christian or a Jew, just someone who believes in freedom, including religious freedom.

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...

You should read what the Founders wrote, they had no problem stating their religious views and several made it clear they believed God's blessing was upon this nation.

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?...

I'd agree with that assessment, but the 1st Amendment prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion, not non-legislative religious acts. There is no law involved here... That is what the Framers feared, legislated religion...

Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, it is tyranny to compel a man to subsidise opinions he disagrees with. He was condemning the practice of tying the Church in with government where the former lives off taxes imposed by the latter...

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

Since congress doesn't enforce its religious preference, it doesn't infringe such a right.
But I find it very awkward that congress begins his sessions with a prayer. The religious preference of your country is clearly stated, and it looks very wrong to me.
Now, the day where a sessions will begin with a prayer for each religion present and the US (plus whatever display of atheism), I'd have no problem with it

That's the key, whether or not a religious preference is enforced or coerced. Actually, James Madison had a problem with opening congressional sessions with prayer too. It was not so much the prayer but he opposed the notion that Congress would hire a minister to offer the prayers. That, he argued correctly, was a legislative act respecting an establishment of religion. But it appears he lost that battle...I guess he didn't want to waste political capital on fighting over it...

Ancryean -

If you are against the removal of the Ten Commandments from a public office of such high stature, you should question the merits of secularism and the seperation of state and religion, instead of trying to prove it doesnt violate the secular principles of the state (I assume the US to be a secular country, my arguements would be moot if I have the wrong idea about this). Otherwise, its removal is, without any doubt, what is demanded by a state governed through principles of secularism...

This "secularism" stems from the language of the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... The 14th Amendment ostensibly applies this restriction on legislative power to the states...

Clearly the words "shall make no law" and "respecting an establishment of religion" are the relevant parts. While "respecting an establishment of religion" may seem ambiguous, what is not ambiguous is the stated restriction - "shall make no law". If there is no law, there can be no violation of the 1st Amendment...

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by 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.

I never said it was. I was objecting to the statement that American Law is Roman. It is not.

I agree that the original English law was not Christian, but since English law is based on precendent and England was a Christian country (on and off) for nearly 1000 years before the formation of the USA, Christian principles and The Bible are a primary influence. This carries over into American law too. I don't see how you can deny this with a straight face....

[Ancyrean]

The idea of seperation of state and religion stems from the historical experience that most religions will aspire to have control over the state machinary and thus have the sociopolitical tools to fashion the society in the image of that religion. This applies for both internal and foreign policy of the state concerned. In Europe, many wars have been fought to save policymaking from the grips of religious dogmas, and after this was achieved, religion was consigned, for all purposes, to its own sphere.

Even so, people of religious conviction every now and then think this is unfair that their belief cannot have more institutionalised a form, more so directly proportional to the conviction of a person in the "rightness" of his religion. Therefore, what develops in response to an oblivious state is to introduce religion in increments, a reference here, a monument there, a condemnation somewhere, a recommendation somewhere else, and measured over time, it amounts to religion BECOMING a factor in policy making.

Therefore, however politically correct an issue may seem under the light of freedom of expression, the issue is in fact wider than that. Religion has been more a divisive concept for mankind than a uniting one, so an expression of religion for one person may go against the grain of another, and although it seems unimportant if the issue is about a monument or even less, what's at stake is if you start making exceptions of the fundamental caveat and principle of keeping the state out of proximity to any church of belief, lest that others now or in the future, will take this as sufficient cause to divide the society.

If I can infer from the fact that the Founders were grandsons of those persectued in Europe, they should be more aware of the divisive qualities of religion, then I can assume that the US was founded on such a concern and with such a principle as described above, than the issue of the removal of the monument should be seen under the general light and is only approppriate.

Hence,

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ancryean -

I'm not a Christian or a Jew, just someone who believes in freedom, including religious freedom.

it's more relevant whether the actions of the people who made the removal of Ten Commandments an issue stem from their religious convictions as opposed to an intellectual concurrance withreligious freedom.

Originally posted by Berzerker
You should read what the Founders wrote, they had no problem stating their religious views and several made it clear they believed God's blessing was upon this nation.

Here again, the core issue I would like to touch upon is whether the Founders were establishing a principle as I described above. Stating your personal religious view is perfectly OK in a secular state, and so is to express the belief that God's blessing is upon America. A seperation of state and religion does not necessarily compel individuals to behave like atheists. It just keeps such expressions out of public office sphere, as it perfectly fits the case at hand, the removal of a clear expression (a monument) of religious conviction from a public office. If you consider the evolution of the US, it seems to me there was a clear preference in America to keep the state seperate from religion, regardless of the remarks of the Founders that MIGHT be taken as a wish to set up a state that favors the religion of the majority.

Originally posted by Berzerker
I'd agree with that assessment, but the 1st Amendment prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion, not non-legislative religious acts. There is no law involved here... That is what the Framers feared, legislated religion...

Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, it is tyranny to compel a man to subsidise opinions he disagrees with. He was condemning the practice of tying the Church in with government where the former lives off taxes imposed by the latter...

Non-legislative religious acts are precisely the tools employed by religious people to bring the state closer in apperance to their religion. It also has the advantage of sounding politically correct and hence making an issue of principle into an exasperatingly meticulous legalistic issue. So, if in the US the principle of the seperation of state and religion was introduced along concerns I describe here, then the removal of the Ten Commandments from an Office of Court cannot be interpreted as an act of suppression of expression. Because the place of expression is inapproppriate, and gives the exact image that the state is behind that one religion

[Berzerker]

I've explained what the 1st Amendment says, what it means, and why it is not violated by a piece of stone placed on public property even if it is a courthouse. That is how we determine if the 1st Amendment has been violated, not if the stone serves as some tool to create an appearance of endorsement.

[Berzerker]

Non-legislative religious acts are precisely the tools employed by religious people to bring the state closer in apperance to their religion.

Legislative acts are precisely the tools employed. Non-legislative acts make no demands on the rest of us...

[uh Clem]

Ned, post #1:

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.

Ned, post #2:

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.

Gee, you were doing so well in that first one. Good summary. Then you had to go into Ned-mode.

You think that the other Alabama justices are all leftists eager to attack Christianity, I take it.

[Berzerker]

The other justices stepped in only after the feds threatened to fine the state of Alabama each day the monument stayed in place. Those judges had 2 years and did nothing...

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I've explained what the 1st Amendment says, what it means, and why it is not violated by a piece of stone placed on public property even if it is a courthouse. That is how we determine if the 1st Amendment has been violated, not if the stone serves as some tool to create an appearance of endorsement.

Granted. But don't you think this is quite a narrow interpretation, taking it quite literally? Asking from a position of trying to understand the American way of deciding on issues, has there never been an examination of the spirit of the Constitution as a complement to the letter of it? Can issues be boiled down to a study of whether there's anything very specificly forbidding something? Is this the way issues are handled? (No irony intended). When I first heard of the final decision to move the monument, I thought the opposite is obviously the case.

[Berzerker]

If anything, the spirit leans even more toward the constitutionality of the monument. You see, when the Constitution was ratified, a number of states had established religions even requiring religious tests for state office. We've come a long way from those days but the pendulum has swung the other way in recent decades with the "secularist" movement
seeking the removal of religious expression from the public square in a number of ways.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Fez -

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.



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 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.



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

I want this: Keep your religious nonsense to yourself. I am happy when things go my way. Call me authoritarian, because I am, it is just the way I think. I say I want freedom when it best suits my NEEDS and WANTS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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?

Where did I reverse myself? They are two different clauses of the Constitution. The monument deals with the 'Establishment Clause' and the pledge deals with 'Free Exercise'. So the kid can face potentential retaliation for not saying "under God". That's nice. Don't see how that violates his free exercise of religion. He can always not do it. If others retaliate then that is their idiocy and the state has little to do with it, especially when it allows someone to not say the pledge at all and there are laws against battery (retaliation).

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

That is the first 2 definitions of a 17 definition term. Selective defining?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Free

I'll point you to definition 5:

Not subject to external restraint

Being able to have human sacrifices according to your religious beliefs and not have the state intervene is being 'not subject to external restraint'. It is FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION! The key is that it deals with with the freedom of religion, not the freedom of the people in the religion.

Groups can have freedom while the individuals within those do not. For example when the Catholic Church during the Papal Revolution (Investiture Crisis) called for a 'freedom of the Church'. It called for a freedom solely for the church, not for the members in the church (that wouldn't be articulated until Luther's "Freedom for the Christian").

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

Yes, the absense of coercion for the RELIGION, not the people making up the religion.

That isn't what happened with Moore, no law was passed. Even you acknowledged no "specific" law was involved...

Doesn't matter. 'Law' in the 1st Amendment has been expanded to include official acts by members 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?

So if the Department of Labor wanted more money from the people (taxes), the fact that the Federal Government got the money means that the Department of Labor has power over the government?!

That's the kind of absurdity you are describing. The Anglican Church was as much a department of the Crown as the Department of Labor is to the US Government. I'd say the Government has power over the DepLabor, not the other way around.

I introduced the Scandinavian Churches because those would be clearly unconstitutional, since they are established churches. The Establishment Clause says nothing about coercion, it simply prohibits an establishment of religion.

They could before the 14th Amendment

Can you show me where in the 14th Amendment it says the Bill of Rights must be incorporated into the states? That is a judicially created doctrine... the Judicial Activism you love so much .