SCOTUS will consider Ten Commandements Case!

[Gatekeeper]

Woo-hoo! Onward, Christian stormtroopers, er, soldiers!

Bah. If they allow the display of the Ten Commandments in every public place, then I'm going to crusade (heh) for every other Tom, Dick and Harry religious group to join the Christians in plastering their religious edicts all over the place. And I mean *every* group. I'd like to see how tolerant folks are then.

Gatekeeper

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Woo-hoo! Onward, Christian stormtroopers, er, soldiers!

Bah. If they allow the display of the Ten Commandments in every public place, then I'm going to crusade (heh) for every other Tom, Dick and Harry religious group to join the Christians in plastering their religious edicts all over the place. And I mean *every* group. I'd like to see how tolerant folks are then.

Gatekeeper

I'm okay with that. My post is not a pro-religious post...it is an anti-federal government involvement post. If the people of Community "A" want a Muslim crecent...then they should have it. If the people of community "B" want the Ten Commandments...they should have it. However, neithier should interfere with the application of law in the courtroom.

This simply isn't a federal issue...and really wasn't until Burger decided that the Supremes were a legislative branch of government as well as judicial.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by PLATO
As I said...Unless CONGRESS voted for the ten commandments, how is it a Constitutional Issue?

I thought that the Constitution applied to state law as well as federal law (in other words, the whole "popular sovereignty" or "ordinance of nullification" business was technically settled awhile back). Or are you arguing that it would be perfectly legal for, say, the Illinois legislature to ban Islam within Illinois borders? If not, then why would one part of the amendment ("prohibiting the free exercise thereof") apply to the states while another part of the amendment ("respecting an establishment of religion") doesn't?

[PLATO]

Article IV, Section 2:

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.

And again from the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Which would cover Islam not being made illegal nationally.


The argument that I am making is that the federal court has no jurisdiction over any of the symbols that a State may choose to display. It does, however have jurisdiction over the equal application of the law. My contention is that it would be legal to display the Ten Commandments, but not to make a legal judgement based upon them.

[Zkribbler]

I'd say, it depends on whether you can read the Commandments or not. Remember, the Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religions each have their own version of the 10 Commandments. Link

The courthouse where I work has a Moses on it, along with a Magna Carta baron and an American Revolutionary. I have no problem with it because it's obviously a historical setting, explaining to early origins of our laws. But I do have a problem with attempt to cram the inevitably Protestant version of the Commandments down the throats of citizens.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The diplomat
As the article notes, the Supreme Court itself has a carving of Moses and the 10 Commandements. How can SCOTUS say that government buildings cannot display the 10 commandements while they and other federal buildings do?

Because it's a piece of national historical architecture, and anyone who actually decided to put it there is long gone?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by PLATO
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.

The Congress = the whole government interpretation of the 1st amendment has been around for a long time. Do you really want to see it gone?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by loinburger
I thought that the Constitution applied to state law as well as federal law (in other words, the whole "popular sovereignty" or "ordinance of nullification" business was technically settled awhile back). Or are you arguing that it would be perfectly legal for, say, the Illinois legislature to ban Islam within Illinois borders? If not, then why would one part of the amendment ("prohibiting the free exercise thereof") apply to the states while another part of the amendment ("respecting an establishment of religion") doesn't?

Most of the amendments in the Bill of Right begin: "Congress shall make no law . . ." Originally, those rights were restricted only to federal statutes.

But the 14th Amendment has since been interpreted to extend most of the Bill of Rights to the several states. Imran can probably give you a more coherent explanation than I can.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by The diplomat
As the article notes, the Supreme Court itself has a carving of Moses and the 10 Commandements. How can SCOTUS say that government buildings cannot display the 10 commandements while they and other federal buildings do?

Because it's a piece of national historical architecture, and anyone who actually decided to put it there is long gone?

So basically the 10 Commandments are ok as long as they don't mean anything?

How are some people so opposed to the 10C? Why are people afraid of religion? So the 10C say that you should obey God, not kill, not steal, not commit adultery etc, what's the big deal? Nobody is forcing you to obey the commandements.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The diplomat
So basically the 10 Commandments are ok as long as they don't mean anything?

Yes.

How are some people so opposed to the 10C? Why are people afraid of religion? So the 10C say that you should obey God, not kill, not steal, not commit adultery etc, what's the big deal? Nobody is forcing you to obey the commandements.

The government is paying for it with their tax money, and when the judges themselves push to have it put up, that's a pretty clear sign that they are intending to play favorites.

[Ned]

Wow, if they allow Christian symbols on public property, next they will allow displays of Pagan gods as well!! OMG!

[Kuciwalker]

?

[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.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by The diplomat
So basically the 10 Commandments are ok as long as they don't mean anything?

They're okay as long as they're not given preeminence over other origins of law, as Imran said.

Why are people afraid of religion?

I'm not afraid of religion, I'm afraid of some the people practicing it.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The government is paying for it with their tax money

The 10C in the Moore case were a donation.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm definately opposed to removing it from such buildings as the Supreme Court. That's part of our national history. It'd be like white-outing "in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven" from the original copy of the Constitution.