SCOTUS will consider Ten Commandements Case!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned


I cannot remember the name of the chief Hindu god at the moment, or I would list him.

Vishnu?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

I just can't summon enough meanness in me to put you on ignore.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by PLATO


Vishnu?

My hindu is quite far but I think there are 3 main ones.
Vishna Shiva and ??? Kali??
not sure about the last one...

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



I just can't summon enough meanness in me to put you on ignore.

I know. You ARE a good person.

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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').

This case is not about the Judge. It's about displays on public property placed there by private parties.

[Kuciwalker]

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

Inasmuch as the only symbols being put up are Christian, yes.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
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."

Acts of government officials have the force of law, given that their posts and powers are established by law.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
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.

Only if the legislators who believed in those gods were trying to promote those gods in some fashion by putting them up, as opposed to using them as everyone else does - symbols of various values. When someone puts them up, they aren't supposed to represent a god, but the god's mythological association.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Acts of government officials have the force of law, given that their posts and powers are established by law.

I'm unaware of any case that holds this in the First Amendment contest.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Ned
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.

Only if the legislators who believed in those gods were trying to promote those gods in some fashion by putting them up, as opposed to using them as everyone else does - symbols of various values. When someone puts them up, they aren't supposed to represent a god, but the god's mythological association.

I think you are beginning to see my point. The reaction of the people would be to view the Roman gods as decorations or some statement of values, not as religious symbols, regardless of the intent of the legislators who authorized the statues.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
I'm unaware of any case that holds this in the First Amendment contest.

The powers of government officials are established by law (and consequently, by the legislature), therefore anything they do in their capacity as a government official is subject to any limits on Congress' (or a state government's) power. Just like Congress can't establish an agency that then proceeds to regulate speech.

[chequita guevara]

Honestly, I have to agree that Ned is raising some really good arguments.

I think we have to look at two things: original intent (by the framers) and what does it mean to us today?

The framers wanted to prevent the establishment of state religion for two reasons: to protect those who don't follow the religion and to protect the religion from government. After all, For the framers, the religious upheavals of the mother country were not ancient history, but only a few generations removed. As well they saw the contortions through which Xianity was placed when the monarch or Parliament changed its mind. They'd also suffered religious persecution in Mother England for practicing a non-state faith.

As we look around the world today, we must be able to see that where a state religion remains, the same problems exist today. Look at the corruption of Islam and Judaism in the ME. See also how those how don't practice "correctly" also wind up dead, tortured, etc. Even in a Western state like Israel, the religious authorities have inordinate power over the secular.

In the U.S. religous intollerence is on the rise, and not merely from the 5% of Americans who are atheists. Christian fundimentalists in general are not terribly welcoming to those not of their faith, especially in communities where they consitute the overwhelming majority.

In the U.S., I would argue that Xianity is largely the most dangerous religion, not merely to atheists but to other Christians. I've felt this way since the early '80s, when I was a Christian. There are large communities of Muslims in the US where I could imagine the same intollerent dynamic is at work.

But we need to be even handed. I don't think we should say, "Well, the pagans aren't a threat, so we can allow their displays on public property." It's not fair to the Christians, Muslims, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
I think you are beginning to see my point. The reaction of the people would be to view the Roman gods as decorations or some statement of values, not as religious symbols, regardless of the intent of the legislators who authorized the statues.

It's not precisely a "statement" of values. A roman god simply isn't a religious symbol any more than an eagle or an olive branch is.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But we need to be even handed. I don't think we should say, "Well, the pagans aren't a threat, so we can allow their displays on public property." It's not fair to the Christians, Muslims, etc.

The point is that there are no pagans to be a threat (in the sense of people who worship Jupiter or Zeus), and that Greek and Roman gods aren't religious symbols anymore. There's no religious connection, just a mythological one - in effect, it's a literary allusion.

[Sava]

this Roy Moore ******* is just trying to get attention and pander to the ultra-religious-right-wing fools...