Ten Commandments unconstitutional!

[chequita guevara]

Damn, wrong thread.

[Tassadar500]

For god sakes. It's a piece of stone. Can someone honestly say by walking by the tablets that they feel threatened? Or that Christianity or Judaism is being pushed on them? Maybe I should sue basicly every country in the world because in cemetery's there are crosses over the graves

[Japher]

I am personally threatened by money, that "god you trust" thing really makes me not want it. So, I give it away, get rid of it, it is a burden and a pox on me after all...whatever!

[lord of the mark]

Re: Ten Commandments unconstitutional!

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Tell me, does that citation favour Judaism, or Christianity? I think that it can be true for both religions. Therefore, the Ten Commandments do not favour one religion over another.

It favors Christianity obviously, since its in English, not Hebrew.

Only Reform Jews would be interested in the "eser divrot" in English, and theyre obviously heretics who should be burnt

[lord of the mark]

Re: Ten Commandments unconstitutional!

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Tell me, does that citation favour Judaism, or Christianity? I think that it can be true for both religions. Therefore, the Ten Commandments do not favour one religion over another.

so if the state of alabama put up a sign that said that EITHER the Protestant Episcopal Church,USA was the vessell of divine truth, OR the Twelver variety of Shiite Islam, take your pick, that would be OK cause it didnt favor one religion over the other.

BTW, whether it "favours" one religion over the other is obviously irrelevant, since we dont spell that way down here. Im not trying to make a US vz Brit/canadian spelling quibble - just wondering why youre so concerned with establishment of religion issues in the States? I mean i can understand foreigners getting all concerned about Gitmo, or whatever - but seperation of church and State - thats a Yank thing, thank you very much. I mean I dont go around complaining that Queen Liz is the head of the Church of England, and all that.

[lord of the mark]

lets be clear - its is quite possible to have an established religion and still have freedom of religion and a secular society - look at the UK, or at Scandinavian countries where Lutheranism is still official. All are quite free religiously, and undoubtedly have quite a few more atheists and agnostics running around than the US has.


And equally, banning the STATE from a preference does not mean making the 10 commandments or any other religious document illegal or unconstitutional.



Rather this reflects a notion about the role of the state, and the seperation of the state from certain aspects of civil society, that is particularly American. There comes a point where the international discussion of certain things becomes pointless. This is NOT about a european or Canadian rivalry between christianity and atheism. It is about an American approach to governance. If you get that, go ahead and discuss.

[Ned]

Ancryean, you make a lot of good points which I will consider. It is just that you have to consider the larger picture here in the US. There's a cultural war ongoing here in the United States between the religious right and secularist left. The religious right condemns abortion, drug use and sexual libertinism on essentially religious grounds as being immoral. The secularist left condemns all displays of Christian symbols as part and parcel of this war. For example, the Democrats in Congress had been uniformly against any judicial appointee who expresses any firm religious conviction. They have done this so much recently that they have now been called the anti-Catholic party because Catholics are especially hardline on issues of morality.

The left never attacks displays of religions other than Christianity. The displays of a Roman goddesses, Confucius, Buddha or of Islam are never a subject of controversy. Only displays that involve Christianity.

I assume that in Turkey that the problem is not Christianity but Islam. I assume there is no problem in display of Christian symbols in Turkey. Right?

By the way, here is a picture of the East pediment on the US Supreme Court. It displays Confucius, a Chinese religious symbol, and Moses; Moses is holding the Ten Commandments. Any lawsuit filed by the ACLU for removal of the display of religious symbols from the Supreme Court building will, I submit, only involve the removal of Moses and the Ten Commandments.

The left has pushed this issue so far that it is going to become a major issue in future elections.

[Ned]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Ned, post #1:


Ned, post #2:


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.

Post 1 related to the issue on as a legal issue. Post 2 related to the issue as a political issue.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
I assume that in Turkey that the problem is not Christianity but Islam. I assume there is no problem in display of Christian symbols in Turkey. Right?

Not so, as it happens. Turkey's founding constitution actually designates Turkey as a specifically Islamic nation; this is something Ataturk wanted to avoid, but didn't feel he had the political support to fight it. In fact, some religious instruction in the nature and history of Islam is required in the Turkish state schools, and the two big Islamic holidays -- the 3-day Sekir Bayram at the end of Ramazan and the 3-day Kurbun Bayram about 45 days later -- are both government holidays as well. Turkey only really regulates those aspects and symbols of Islam that it regards as actually Islamicist, and therefore a threat to the secular nature of the state; chief among these is the wearing of headscarves at schools or government functions.

Christianity, on the other hand, has a curious presence here. At the beginning of the Republic, when Turkey declared itself officially Islamic, the only other permitted religions became those that were "grandfathered" in by virtue of being tolerated under the Ottoman Empire. Thus, Orthodox Christianity is a legal religion here, as is Catholicism, I believe (a legacy of the Ottomans' long, close relationship with France, as well as with the city-states of Venice and Genoa). Judaism is also legal. But Protestantism, AFAIK, is illegal, and Christian missionaries are routinely harrassed for prosthetizing; the only public Protestant house of worship in Ankara is on the grounds of the British embassy, and therefore technically not in Turkey.

Turkey's one working model of how to have a secular state, but not of how to preserve freedom of religion.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Ned
Ancryean, you make a lot of good points which I will consider. It is just that you have to consider the larger picture here in the US. There's a cultural war ongoing here in the United States between the religious right and secularist left. The religious right condemns abortion, drug use and sexual libertinism on essentially religious grounds as being immoral. The secularist left condemns all displays of Christian symbols as part and parcel of this war. For example, the Democrats in Congress had been uniformly against any judicial appointee who expresses any firm religious conviction. They have done this so much recently that they have now been called the anti-Catholic party because Catholics are especially hardline on issues of morality.

Yep, I see the issue has a very different nature in the US. I was just comparing the concept of secularism as I understand it from my upbringing in Turkey as opposed to how it plays out in a specific issue like this one in the US.

Originally posted by Ned
The left never attacks displays of religions other than Christianity. The displays of a Roman goddesses, Confucius, Buddha or of Islam are never a subject of controversy. Only displays that involve Christianity.

I can't say anything about the interplay of the left and right on religion in the US, but actually, the situation about displays of Christianity as you put here only makes sense, because separation of church and state is implemented most vigourously with regards to any religions that have the highest potential to be influential in state affairs. So, although the principle demands a uniformity of action in response to anything religious (public displays of ANY religion that would imply a preferential position), in practice only the religion that is dominant in the society gets the most reaction...Ten Commandments, despite their Judaic origins (gosh, I almost typed "Mosaic" there, I mean, from Moses ) are so basic for Christianity, it transcends (or underlies) ALL brands of Christianity (correct me if I'm wrong here) so much so that it is inevitably associated with Christianity in general without the need for any reference to which particular church, and thus draws the most attention...Making a wild analogy, I would go on to say, if the Roman Gods had tens of millions of followers in the US, their display in public offices would attract quite a reaction, and thus be subject to discussions of freedom of religion (man, I hope this is making sense...I don't know, I hope you catch my drift...) Actually, the absence of any following to Roman Deities and the insignificant degree of following of Confucianism or whatnot in the US makes the symbols of them de-religionised. That's why I was talking about the principle behind the idea of secularism and not about legalistic interpretations of the relevant Amendments to the US Constitution. The principle explains what seems to be most exasparating, the issue of why Christian symbols are always the matter...

[Berzerker]

Ned -

There's a cultural war ongoing here in the United States between the religious right and secularist left. The religious right condemns abortion, drug use and sexual libertinism on essentially religious grounds as being immoral.

Now this is where we have violations of the establishment clause. The "religious right" has legislated it's religious views in a number of areas and then they accuse the people who don't want these views imposed upon them of "bigotry" or being anti-Christian as if Jesus commanded his followers to run around jailing non-believers.

Imran -

Where did I reverse myself?

I just explained where.

They are two different clauses of the Constitution. The monument deals with the 'Establishment Clause' and the pledge deals with 'Free Exercise'.

No, they both deal with the establishment clause and the pledge also deals with the free exercise clause. Regarding the pledge, the state is "asking" children to affirm a religious belief, that goes to the heart of an establishment of religion and religious freedom.

So the kid can face potentential retaliation for not saying "under God". That's nice.

No Imran, that's coercion.

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).

The state created the coercive situation.

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

You need the entire definition? Have you found an opposite meaning among those 17? If not, then what I offered is enough.

I'll point you to definition 5:

Oh, selective defining?

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.

Imran, is murder an external restraint? Sheesh, you have a mental block. If murder is an external restraint, then murder is not an act of freedom. And if murder is not an act of freedom, it is not an act of religious freedom and a law prohibiting murder does not constrain anyone's freedom.

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").

And? I wish I could respond with more but you've gone from a debate about the meaning of religious freedom in the 1st Amendment to something the Catholic Church did.

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

Who do you think practices religions? There would be no religion without adherents...

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

It was expanded? When? What amendment re-wrote the 1st Amendment?

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?!

The Dept of Labor is part of 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.

You didn't answer my question. If the Church of England wanted money from the peasantry, who got the money? Trying to equate the Church with a government bureaucracy won't cut it, the Church and the British government were allied but separate entities often at "war" with each other in struggles over power sharing.

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.

No Imran, the 1st Amendment prohibits LAWS respecting an establishment of religion. If there are no laws made respecting an establishment of religion, the 1st Amendment remains intact.

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 .

Section 1 - "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Ned]

Berzerker, it is not a violation of any amendment to ban partial birth abortions, as was done today, for any reason. If the people in Congress who vote for the bill do so out of religious conviction, the resulting statute does not suddenly become unconstitutional under the first amendment.

You really have to explain what you said about how religion itself is, in effect, unconstitutional.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Not so, as it happens. Turkey's founding constitution actually designates Turkey as a specifically Islamic nation; this is something Ataturk wanted to avoid, but didn't feel he had the political support to fight it. In fact, some religious instruction in the nature and history of Islam is required in the Turkish state schools, and the two big Islamic holidays -- the 3-day Sekir Bayram at the end of Ramazan and the 3-day Kurbun Bayram about 45 days later -- are both government holidays as well. Turkey only really regulates those aspects and symbols of Islam that it regards as actually Islamicist, and therefore a threat to the secular nature of the state; chief among these is the wearing of headscarves at schools or government functions.

Christianity, on the other hand, has a curious presence here. At the beginning of the Republic, when Turkey declared itself officially Islamic, the only other permitted religions became those that were "grandfathered" in by virtue of being tolerated under the Ottoman Empire. Thus, Orthodox Christianity is a legal religion here, as is Catholicism, I believe (a legacy of the Ottomans' long, close relationship with France, as well as with the city-states of Venice and Genoa). Judaism is also legal. But Protestantism, AFAIK, is illegal, and Christian missionaries are routinely harrassed for prosthetizing; the only public Protestant house of worship in Ankara is on the grounds of the British embassy, and therefore technically not in Turkey.

Turkey's one working model of how to have a secular state, but not of how to preserve freedom of religion.

Hi Rufus . The secular nature of the state is first enshrined in the second constitution of Turkey, and the thing about the seperation of state and religion in Turkey is that in fact it's not a seperation by the full meaning of the word, it's rather state control over religion. State watches over the training and assignment of imams, and religious schools are permitted only under the aegis of the state. That's why for example, the universal nature of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch is not recognised by the state (he'd be out of state's oversight if he were a universal figure -like the Pope- so he's considered as the leader of only the Greek Orthodox Christians in Turkey, whereas the Orthodox take him as some kind of a Pope) and the Convent that trains bishops for the Patriarchate remains closed (they insist it to be an independent entity).

About Protestantism, it cannot be illegal in Turkey, as there's a Protestant Armenian church in Istanbul.

Anyway, to connect all this to the discussion at hand, it seems to me that in the US the discussion about secularism is more issue-intensive, where the topic comes up only when there's an incident inspiring reaction (mostly) from religious people. Otoh, in Turkey the more tangible nature of a potential Islamic takeover made secularism an untouchable article of faith
and issues are handled from that starting point.

Actually, it's amazing that I started to come across references to Christian fundamentalism after 9/11 more and more (maybe it was always there in US public debate and I wasn't aware, or maybe taking the clue from Islamic fundamentalism people started to talk about it more...And yes, I know, this is a highly political issue in the US )

[uh Clem]

By the way, here is a picture of the East pediment on the US Supreme Court. It displays Confucius, a Chinese religious symbol, and Moses; Moses is holding the Ten Commandments. Any lawsuit filed by the ACLU for removal of the display of religious symbols from the Supreme Court building will, I submit, only involve the removal of Moses and the Ten Commandments.

Expert testimony about a case that has never been brought and is not even being considered. If the ACLU were to file suit, here's what they'd say, blah, blah, blah...

It's time to consider the thought that maybe the people you criticize aren't at all like your distorted view of them.

Post 1 related to the issue on as a legal issue. Post 2 related to the issue as a political issue.

Stay away from politics.

[Ned]

Ancryean, I think you understand the situation here in the US perfectly. There is indeed a struggle between religion and secularism that is increasing in its ferocity. The key religious/secular issues that divide this country include abortion and the status of gays. However, there also seems to be a constant assault by the secularists on the display or use of Christian symbols by government officials or by private citizens on government property such as city parks. This seems petty because it has nothing to do with the establisment of religion to most people, but in many cases does inhibit their constitutionally protected right to practice their religion.

From my long view of Turkey, the wearing of scarves by women is an aspect of free exercise of religion, not establishment of religion, and should be permitted.