SCOTUS will consider Ten Commandements Case!

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Ned
And so, we come full circle to my original point. I agree that the display of a symbol of a dead religion cannot establish religion. I would also submit that the display of Budda in the United States cannot even remotely establish Buddism.

??? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but we'll just go more with what the USSC has tended to stay in the past. The idea, at least the conservative idea, is for the federal government to avoid favoring any particular one religion over another. This is why having large displays with some religious elements has been considered constitutional, while others that focus soley on the religious content are not. The test is whether or not the display serves as an implicit statement of state bias.

It can be argued, very well in fact, based on the personal beliefs and backgrounds of the individuals attempting to put the ten commandments into the courtroom that these people do so with the explicit intention of promoting Christianity. Were there to be a statue of Buddha put up in front of the Washington DC Department of State I would indeed be very troubled and think it VERY unconstitutional if it were put up for the purpose of promoting the buddhist religion. The same would go with a gigantic statue of Zeus, or a Star of David.

But, can it really be intelligently argued that our blind Justice is put there for the advancement of paganism? It seems to be a stretch, the message Justice has is totally different than one of religion!

No matter how small the religion, the government must remain ever-vigilant in its efforts to ensure that nothing is done to give the impression that it is favoring it. In the US there is but ONE King, and that is not God but the law. By examining the history of our nation, founded and nurtured on unitarian ideals, it is easy to see that God has no place in our courts. God has no place in our schools. God has no place in our bureaucracy. Let's keep God locked up in our private lives, where he belongs.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


What would be the motivation for putting Budda on a public building?

Z, the point is that the first amendment protects the practice of religion, banning only its establishment by laws. The "motivation" of anyone in doing something religious is irrelevant. Their acts are protected conduct. The only question is whether what they did was

1) a law or ordinance;

2) established or would reasonably tend to establish;

3) religion.

Most people in these discussion simply cancel out the constitutional provision at issue and say any display by the goverment that is religious in nature or intent is a violation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, back to Budda. Even if there was an ordinance requiring the display of Budda in a public place, I would argue that there was no chance that that display could establish Buddism as a state religion.

Which gets me back to my original point. Is it only Christian symbols that are causing the problem?

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ned]

CygnusZ, I agree that the laws cannot favor one religion over the other. But can a law permit displays by private parties on a building or in a public park so long as it does not discriminate in any way between religions?

BTW, wouldn't laws discrimating between the private practice of one religion or another fall under the "free exercise" clause or the "equal protection" clause rather than the "establishment" clause.

[Lul Thyme]

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.

Im not American, but that pretty much sums up my idea on such things.
By having such things displayed, you indirectly support it, except in many exceptions, historical and such.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Ned
CygnusZ, I agree that the laws cannot favor one religion over the other. But can a law permit displays by private parties on a building or in a public park so long as it does not discriminate in any way between religions?

BTW, wouldn't laws discrimating between the private practice of one religion or another fall under the "free exercise" clause or the "equal protection" clause rather than the "establishment" clause.

Public officals should never count as private parties, and I have a feeling you've already studied that. As for your displays question, it's difficult to give a definitive answer because it still lies largely in the realm of state law. Each state has its own regulations for what may or may not be displayed in a public area.

I'm of the opinon that no religious display of any kind should be made on public property. It's a perfect fit with the idea of laws not favoring one religion over another. The law which denies talk of any of these religious matters (including Atheism), treats them all equally. There are so many religions the only to possible treat them equally is to ignore them all equally. If the state allows a muslim display it creates implicit discrimination against all other religions in that the muslim display has gotten space by X,Y and Z religion have recieved none. If all religions are equal in the eyes of the state, then each and EVERY religion (whether they intend to use the space or not) should recieve equal space for their own displays.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
SCROTUM

[Jaguar]

Am I the only person who really couldn't care less?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, I have had it with you. You are now on my ignore list.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ned
Intent?

I think the test has to be "objective." Does it or does it not "tend" to "establish" religion.

The differences between manslaughter, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder are primarily matters of intent -- all three acts "tend" to "kill" people. If you don't believe that laws established on intent are valid, then you've got bigger problems than some nitpick with the establishment clause.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CygnusZ


Public officals should never count as private parties, and I have a feeling you've already studied that. As for your displays question, it's difficult to give a definitive answer because it still lies largely in the realm of state law. Each state has its own regulations for what may or may not be displayed in a public area.

I'm of the opinon that no religious display of any kind should be made on public property. It's a perfect fit with the idea of laws not favoring one religion over another. The law which denies talk of any of these religious matters (including Atheism), treats them all equally. There are so many religions the only to possible treat them equally is to ignore them all equally. If the state allows a muslim display it creates implicit discrimination against all other religions in that the muslim display has gotten space by X,Y and Z religion have recieved none. If all religions are equal in the eyes of the state, then each and EVERY religion (whether they intend to use the space or not) should recieve equal space for their own displays.

CygnusZ, it seems we are in agreement on the constitutionality arguments to a point. As to public officials making religious displays, I take the view that their own exercise of religion is constitutionally protected, not proscribe. The establishment clause speaks only of "laws."

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



Please, tell me what to do so that he will put me on Ignore.

MrFun, I'm sorry if I annoy you. You can put me on your list if you please. But from my point of view, I would never put you on my list because you are an honorable gentleman. I really enjoy discussions when you are involved.

[Ned]

Originally posted by loinburger

The differences between manslaughter, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder are primarily matters of intent -- all three acts "tend" to "kill" people. If you don't believe that laws established on intent are valid, then you've got bigger problems than some nitpick with the establishment clause.

I really have trouble with "intent" of the legislature aspect of this. I would find it incredible if a display of a Roman Goddess in one locale would be banned there and only there if there just happened to be a group of legislators who believed in the ancient gods.

Although this seems truly wierd, there are people on this forum who have professed a belief in these gods, at least as they respect Odin or Wotan, take your pick.

I have some Indian friends who are very devout. They do believe in these old gods even though we do not. Since the Indians are in part Aryans, these same gods trace back to a common origin. Zeus, Odin, Jupiter are all different names for the same god. I cannot remember the name of the chief Hindu god at the moment, or I would list him.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Am I the only person who really couldn't care less?

No. It's not a very interesting Con. Law case IMO.

[Zevico]

If it's the judge's office, fine---it's his right to put what he wants in his office.
Yet a prominent position of such commandments outside of the courtroom gives the place a religious feel to it, that I think is simply inappropriate in a secular country such as the USA. It would be promoting religion. The same would be the case if it were Muslim laws, Buddhist laws, and etc. The aforementioned Roman Goddess is exempt from this---she's not worshipped anymore, and has become a symbol of justice, and indeed an artful representation of it (if you mean the 'blind woman with the scales').