SCOTUS will consider Ten Commandements Case!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by The diplomat
. . .So the 10C say that you should obey God . . .

I see...so it's the government's business to inform me that God exists and that I should obey Him. Apparently, I don't have enough brains to figure that out by myself.

...What happens the day that government officials decide that God does not exist?? If the government can decide God exists, then it can also find that He doesn't exist. Or it can decide he's really a collection of gods. Or they can decide He demands human sacrifices.

Personally, I think religious beliefs should be left up to individuals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As I said...Unless CONGRESS voted for the ten commandments, how is it a Constitutional Issue? I can tell you how...The courts OF THEIR OWN VOLITION said so. Which, of course, is judicial legislation and is WRONG.

Oy... where to begin? The 14th Amendment has applied the Bill of Rights to the states, by making people citizens of the US as well as their individual states (and the privileges and immunities of the US are those Bill of Rights). Therefore, where it says 'Congress' it means the entire government appartus, including state governments.

At the time when the Constitution was signed, Congress was supposed to be the main governing body and was supposed to approve everything (including the facade of the SCOTUS). Now it applies to the states due to the 14th Amendment and state bodies can stand in for 'Congress' in the original text.

Therefore a court putting the 10 Commandments up is subject to the First Amendment because it is a state actor.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

So the Illinois example would not hold.

Um, that isn't what that means. Article IV's privilege and immunities clause means that you cannot deny your state's protections to those from out of state.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm in favor of removing such religious symbols as the Ten Commandments from government property for two reasons:

1) Such prohibition does not interfere with one's own religious freedom.

2) The government is not suppose to endorse/support one religion over another.

Do you favor removing only Christian religious symbols?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


Do you favor removing only Christian religious symbols?

In the Nedverse dimension does the word religious have to automatically equate with Christian??



I don't want to dare break any rules here . . . . . .

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



In the Nedverse dimension does the word religious have to automatically equate with Christian??



I don't want to dare break any rules here . . . . . .

Let me ask the question a different way. Would the display of a symbol of Islam or Judaism or of pagan India or Rome tend to "establish religion?"

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


Let me ask the question a different way. Would the display of a symbol of Islam or Judaism or of pagan India or Rome tend to "establish religion?"

yes, it would

[Ned]

But, Mr. Fun, the very symbol of Justice is a Roman Goddess.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Do you favor removing only Christian religious symbols?

Oh, this can get nasty. The Seal of the County of Los Angeles had a bunch of symbols on it...sailing ships, oil wells, and either a rainbow or the Hollywood Bowl under two stars and a cross. The ACLU sued because of the cross.

The County settled, agreeing to take out the cross.

When the redesigned Seal was unveiled, Pomona, the pagen goddess of the harvest had been replaced by a native American woman offering a bowl of acorns.

Yowls went up that women, especially minority women, were being portrayed in the role of subservience.

[MrFun]

I don't see any inconsitency if we allow for symbols of certain passe, pagan gods/goddesses for other purposes while we have different rules for symbols related to religions that are still relevant today, to an overwhelming part of population.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



I don't see any inconsitency if we allow for symbols of certain passe, pagan gods/goddesses for other purposes while we have different rules for symbols related to religions that are still relevant today, to an overwhelming part of population.

So you would discriminate based on the number of adherents.

Now, would the display of Budda tend to "establish" religion in the US? There may be a few million adherents in the US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So dead religions whose symbols are put up for vastly different reasons than their original connotations are the same as putting up crosses by Christians for Ned .

Proof positive that he lives in a different reality than the rest o fus.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So dead religions whose symbols are put up for vastly different reasons than their original connotations are the same as putting up crosses by Christians for Ned .

Proof positive that he lives in a different reality than the rest o fus.

Reasons?

Is that the test?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The intent is an important consideration. Therefore Commandments which are similar in size as other law giving documents.would not violate the 1st Amendment because it is obviously intended as a historical law giving document, the same as Hammurabi's code.

[Zkribbler]

The problem here -- and this is why things get sticky -- is the propriety of the governments use of symbols depends on the government official's motivation -- or at least the preception of that motivation.

For example, when Kenneth Hahn designed the Seal of Los Angeles County, I'm sure he put the cross in to express his religious beliefs..that L.A. was a Christian county. But when he included Pomona, it was to represent furtile farmlands, not to attempt to revive Roman polytheism.

The cross had a religious purpose; Pomona did not.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So dead religions whose symbols are put up for vastly different reasons than their original connotations are the same as putting up crosses by Christians for Ned .

Proof positive that he lives in a different reality than the rest o fus.