If you believe in the Constitution please read.

[CZ52GUY]

johnpmahler

I'm neither Liberal nor offended by the mention of G-d's name. I do however object to the 'state', in this case in the guise of a high court official, declaring that the tenants of a particular religion are the core of justice within his jurisdiction.

I believe that the judge did so based on objective review of historical precident which several posters have referenced. Can you provide compelling proof that the Ten Commandments are not relevant to the code of justice of Western civilization?

He could have had 'In G-d we trust' put on that monument, or '..endowed by their creator', or some such similar theme. Heck, he could have quoted the relevant passages from the state constitution.

So you are acknowledging that his office entitled him to select "thought provoking content" for public display? You believe that his selection of the Ten Commandments as a relevant "thought provoking content" inappropriate based on the merits of the Ten Commandment's historical influence on codes of justice? If so, this is hardly a 1st Amendment relevant complaint requiring a remedy?

He didn't do that. He chose a particular Christian translation of a religious text that includes a commandment to worship a particular g-d. Sounds close enough to establishing a state religion to me, to at least be very worrysome.

If you start with the premise that his office empowered him with the authority to select something "thought provoking" to be displayed, the issue would seem to be related to whether a state establishment of religion has occurred. (BTW, at the time of Jefferson's letter, the Congregational Church had been established as the official religion of both Massachusetts and Connecticut without SCOTUS interference, which prompted the original correspondence from the Danbury Baptists).

If Connecticut and Massachusetts selecting a state religion did not violate the 1st (based on the lack of any successful legal challenge that I'm aware of), certainly a state judge selecting the Ten Commandments as appropriate text to display in a state court rotunda based on its historical influence on Western justice (Levitical law also played a part), it stretches reason to determine that a Congressional Law has been passed Establishing a "Church of England equivalency" which is what the prohibition on establishment had in mind.

Yeah, I have a problem with that.

That is irrelevant as to whether a legitimate claim to Establishment as is actually written into the 1st is present in this case.

It is the people of Alabama who elected this individual and the Constitution of that state which is applicable.

Regards,

CZ52'

 

[johnpmahler]

hmmm....

couple of thoughts, please point out the flaws if you see them.

From say around the year 300 or so, on up until this century the core of a lawyers schooling would have been Roman Civil Law. The only major break from that tradition would have been the Napolionic code, written in the 1800's by you know who, and retained pretty much only in France and a few of her old colonies.

So the Lawyers (who wrote the new laws) learned how to do it from the Romans, not the Clergy.

It was called a classical education, because that's what you learned, the Classics. In the original latin or greek if you had the skill. If you where studying the bible, it's because you where in divinity school.

The ten commandments where part of a larger whole (613 by last count), that the west decided to pick and choose a dozen or so to hang on to. Please remember that in the Torah, sodomy and smoking on the sabbath are both sins, carrying equivelent punishments.

As has been pointed out before by others, the following commandments have no place in civil law, unless you are establishing a religion:

That there is a particular G-d who must be worshiped and acknowledged
That the Sabbath must be observed
That you may not worship idols

Prohibitions against murder and theft are so basic to any legal code going back to Babylon (sp?) (not to mention China, Greece, Rome, the Mongols, etc.) that I cannot accept that the originate soley from this source.

Whats left? Immoral sex and respecting yer elders? hmmm seems that these have been part of human culture for as long as anyone can tell.

So, while I can certainly accept that the biblical commandments have formed part of the textual mosaic that has brought us to the current overabbundance of lawyers in our midst, it's just one small part.

My objection to the 10 commandments being so enshrined has nothing to do with it's relevence to the origin of civil law. It has everything to do with the fact that the judge has taken a particular religious text, and enshrined it as the sole source. Once again, had he placed into a larger context of quotes and/or references to other sources it would have been cool. Heck, that could have been thought provoking and educational.


As far as Mass/Conn state religions, once again these activities predated the 14th amendment, which the people of this country and the states decided to accept. That acceptance imposed the bill of rights on the states for the first time. Up until then, of course, any constitutional restriction on the Federal government would not apply to the States....now they do. Same reason that the 2nd applies to the states today as well.

 

[CZ52GUY]

reply..

From say around the year 300 or so, on up until this century the core of a lawyers schooling would have been Roman Civil Law. The only major break from that tradition would have been the Napolionic code, written in the 1800's by you know who, and retained pretty much only in France and a few of her old colonies.

Actually, the OT pre-dates the Romans.

From the time of Constantine to the Reformation, civil and Clergy law were virtually indistinguishable in much of Western civilization.

So the Lawyers (who wrote the new laws) learned how to do it from the Romans, not the Clergy.

You provide no conclusive refutation of the influence of Judism and Christianity on Western Civilization and the US specifically...which is irrellevant as to whether a Federal religion has been established per the standards established in the 1st as written.

The ten commandments where part of a larger whole (613 by last count), that the west decided to pick and choose a dozen or so to hang on to. Please remember that in the Torah, sodomy and smoking on the sabbath are both sins, carrying equivelent punishments.

Levitical law contained the detailed code of which the Ten pre-dated and summarized. By what objective evidence do you find that the West "decided to pick and choose"...and I do not see where that has bearing on whether the judge in question had the right to select "thought provoking" content, and whether a federal religion was established, only a difference in taste which the people of Alabama should decide, not a federal judge.

Prohibitions against murder and theft are so basic to any legal code going back to Babylon (sp?) (not to mention China, Greece, Rome, the Mongols, etc.) that I cannot accept that the originate soley from this source.

Actually, the Exodus and the conveyance of the Ten Commandments and Levitical law pre-dates Babylon, which conquered the Israeli kingdom around 586 BC. Again, the opportunity for alternative sources of influence does not nullify the reality that the Ten Commandments and Levitical law had and continues to have on Western civilization. Alternative reference points do not make the judges selection of this content unconstitutional...I'd be curious which of the Chinese tenants that the FF incorporated into the Constitution and the BOR?

Whats left? Immoral sex and respecting yer elders? hmmm seems that these have been part of human culture for as long as anyone can tell.

That other reference points (many of which post-date the Ten Commandment conveyance) reference similar content is validation of their worth, not a refutation...however...again, it does not provide any merit to the argument that a constitutional violation has occurred? If 20 years from now someone decides to quote an ancient Chinese proverb on a monument in a court, will that require federal intervention? I think not. This is silliness raised by those who object to religion in general, and Christianity specifically.

Provide a SCOTUS decision or Federal law at the time of the BOR or within 50 years of passage which supports your claim that a public display of a religious quotation on public property was prohibited. There is no historical basis within that time period for the modern interpretation by some that any mention of a deity in a publicly owned facility constitutes a violation of the 1st as written. It is imagined by those with an agenda, not with any historical context to support any original intent by the FF.

My objection to the 10 commandments being so enshrined has nothing to do with it's relevence to the origin of civil law. It has everything to do with the fact that the judge has taken a particular religious text, and enshrined it as the sole source. Once again, had he placed into a larger context of quotes and/or references to other sources it would have been cool. Heck, that could have been thought provoking and educational.

The Constitution does not require the people of Alabama elect a judge who selects "thought provoking content" that is universally appreciated. No religion has been established by placing this text (which undeniably contains religious content) on public property. What church benefits from the taxes that are collected by Alabama that this monument has established? What role does that church have in their lives? NONE, because no official religion has been established. There is no violation of the 1st because no official religion has been established. Again, if there was no successful legal challenge to the Congregational church established in Massachusetts and Connecticut, there is little room for such a broad view of establishment and narrow view of free exercise.

As far as Mass/Conn state religions, once again these activities predated the 14th amendment, which the people of this country and the states decided to accept (that's why it's called. That acceptance imposed the bill of rights on the states for the first time. Up until then, of course, any constitutional restriction on the Federal government would not apply to the States....now they do. Same reason that the 2nd applies to the states today as well.

I've read the 14th many times but have not seen where emancipation for slaves translates into allocation of tyrannical powers to the federal judiciary. No, that someone somewhere can become offended and expect everyone everywhere to toe his/her line based on available resources convincing an activitist federal judiciary is not consistent with the 14th as written.

Please provide a successful legal challenge to a public display of a "religious artifact" on state owned property within 25 years of the 14th being adopted based on the language of the 14th and you may have a legitimate argument to raise.

Happy hunting. I'm especially interested in hearing how the combination school/church/town halls immediately divested into separate entities because of the 14th

In the end, the 14th did not expand the prohibition stated in the 1st, or discontinue the free exercise guarantees either.

A judge in Alabama put up a monument that some folks didn't like. There is no reason for a federal case, the people of Alabama can seek a remedy within state law, the tyrants in robes have no standing.

Regards,

CZ52'

 

[johnpmahler]

dude, we got to get together one day

let me say that I really appreciate a person who can debate an issue like this without turning it into a stupid rehash of brain dead opinions & mudslinging.

You wouldn't live anywhere near the northeast would you? I'd love to get together & shoot the breeze & put holes in paper for an afternoon.

Also, Mr CZ-52 dude, you should know youse is talking to one of the few custom grip makers on the planet who does custom CZ 50/52/70 grips
maybe we could fit you out with something nice?


on to the debate!

Yeah the OT predates the Romans, but they paid no attention to it at all. By the time Constantine turned up, the early christians had dumped the vast majority of jewish law and had started work on their own version of the rules.

I don't buy the Civil/Clergy law being similar without some concrete proof. It doesn't sound right to me (by which I mean that it does not fit well into the mental framework that has built up over 25 years of studying history)

Christianity certainly has had influence over European/American history and law, if only because most of the laws where written by Christians. Please address my point that the foundation of these laws however was inherited from the Romans, who until Constintine showed up didn't care for the Jews or the Christians one bit.

Unless my reading of the OT is pretty off base, the ten commandments where delivered to Moshe at Mt Sinai, which is the same time frame for the Levitical laws. The ten are a subset of the law, not a summary. I come at this from an Orthadox Jewish perspective, so my take on this could easily be different than yours.

It's a side issue, but I can't pass it up! By what evidence can I say that the west 'Picked & Chose'....

Well lets see, The laws of Kashrut, the entire Levitical sacrificial system, Observance of the Sabbath on the right day of the week, all of the commanded Holy days (Sukkot, Yom Kippor, Pesach, ect, etc), the laws concerning treatment of slaves, the sabbatical year, divorce, dress, ....it goes on. What was kept? The ten already mentioned, the ban on sodomy, and in some cases a form of sabbath observance (so what maybe 5%?)

I find myself at a disadvantage as we are in the process of migrating to Vermont & my entire library (except the Terry Pratchetts & some religious texts) is in a storage locker 5 hours north of here....

so, we agree that it is a religious text right?

would you agree that since the judge didn't use the original Hebrew, he picked a particular translation, and that different Christian sects have used different translations of the original?

From what yer saying, sounds like you would follow a strict interpetation of the establishment clause (sounded lawyerish didn't it). In your opinion, what would cross that line? Can a state gov't establish a religion at this time (in your opinion)? Can that religion be whatever the state so chooses (e.g. LDS in Utah)

I'll see what I can track down for case law arguments.

added : just found this in 'Findlaw'

''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.'' 41 ''[The] Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments.''

From the Alabama Constitution:
======
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.
======

hmmm.....'no preference' is quit a bit shy establishment. I'm not sure it clearly covers this situation, as no law was passed, but I think it could be argued that it's relevant.
John

 

[CZ52GUY]

I enjoy a good discussion...

I'm in NH, PM if you want to set something up sometime...

Yeah the OT predates the Romans, but they paid no attention to it at all. By the time Constantine turned up, the early christians had dumped the vast majority of jewish law and had started work on their own version of the rules.

I'd disagree with your assessment that by the 4th century AD, Christians had dispensed with the Old Testament in its entirety. Levitical Law was not practiced as to how many paces on the Sabbath, the period of time of uncleanliness, prohibitions on certain foods (Peter's recounting of his vision had something to do with that), etc., but the influence of due process, objective evidence supporting an accusation, and the punishment fitting the crime are sustained even to this day within Christian circles and the civil justice systems of cultures heavily influenced by that religion. If you review the New Testament, civil law is largely left to civil authorities while retaining ultimate respect for the "laws of God". This statement is abused by those on both side of this argument...my read of it after 7 years of Christian schooling at multiple levels is that the you allocate to the government that which rightly belongs to them...you don't let the government tell you that you must rape, pillage, steal, murder, or deny your faith in God...based on what I've read from Justice Moore, his interpretation is consistent with mine...at least in principle.

Again, this does not conclusively prove or disprove whether anything unconstitutional has occurred in Alabama, rather whether the reasons cited by the judge for selection of the Ten as relevant "thought provoking content" in the case are credible. I'd like to think reasonable people could agree that his assertions of some merit based on cultural significance, whether we concur with his actions in their entirety or not. Cultures largely influenced by Christianity would be influenced by OT writing, which makes the OT "words of wisdom" selected relevant to the cultural history of civil justice in Alabama.

Christianity certainly has had influence over European/American history and law, if only because most of the laws where written by Christians. Please address my point that the foundation of these laws however was inherited from the Romans, who until Constintine showed up didn't care for the Jews or the Christians one bit.

The foundational basis for the laws I contend is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly, in the Colonies, Christianity was a significant force. Whether you trace the evolution of specific code to Levitical law through the path you described or attempt to point back to alternate originating sources is an interesting research project but once again, not relevant as to whether the Ten Commandment passage is consistent with the reasoning put forward by Justice Moore.

Unless my reading of the OT is pretty off base, the ten commandments where delivered to Moshe at Mt Sinai, which is the same time frame for the Levitical laws. The ten are a subset of the law, not a summary. I come at this from an Orthadox Jewish perspective, so my take on this could easily be different than yours.

The OT canon that I read shows the Ten delivered in Exodus which provided the basis for the Levitical law which followed in Leviticus and to some degree, in Deuteronomy. I describe the Ten as summarizing, not as an "Executive Summary", but I think you can reasonably trace the logic of the details found in Levitical law, to one of the Ten. I see a hierarchy I guess, but my interpretation is based somewhat on Protestant influence from my youth. The only real relevance to the case being...that I think a reasonable case can be made for selecting the Ten as being especially relevant to the culture from which our Founding Fathers sprang, especially considering their influence on the system of justice and the belief that all individuals were created equal in the eyes of the Deity that is referenced within so many of the speeches and documents which gave birth to our nation. Equal before a Creator, and endowed with inalienable rights...powerful stuff and contrary to just about every culture that preceded them...true "out of the box" thinking.

Well lets see, The laws of Kashrut, the entire Levitical sacrificial system, Observance of the Sabbath on the right day of the week, all of the commanded Holy days (Sukkot, Yom Kippor, Pesach, ect, etc), the laws concerning treatment of slaves, the sabbatical year, divorce, dress, ....it goes on. What was kept? The ten already mentioned, the ban on sodomy, and in some cases a form of sabbath observance (so what maybe 5%?)

I think it is more correct to say that the religion of Christianity and the cultures it influenced evolved to pursue a legal system that differed from the Levitical law whose text is retained in the Christian Bible. Again, reading from the KJV or similar version of OT, the enforcement of Levitical laws was sometimes tempered with mercy by the Law Giver (e.g. David's sin with Bathsheba and murder of her husband)...I wouldn't allocate to the West that which Judaism itself and Christianity have evolved away from over the last 3500 years or so in terms of specific adherence to the original codes, method of punishment, etc.. The relevance to this case being, that Justice Moore is not "out of school" with the cultural historical influences he cites as motivating his selection of the Ten vs. the full text "a much bigger monument or much smaller print being required should he have considered that option".

I find myself at a disadvantage as we are in the process of migrating to Vermont & my entire library (except the Terry Pratchetts & some religious texts) is in a storage locker 5 hours north of here....

Not a problem...wouldn't help you anyway

so, we agree that it is a religious text right?

Yup! But it does not establish a religion that anyone in Alabama or anywhere else must pledge their allegience to, tithe their money to, or become a card carrying member of...

would you agree that since the judge didn't use the original Hebrew, he picked a particular translation, and that different Christian sects have used different translations of the original?

I think he chose an English translation so the English speaking people of Alabama could actually read it. From a historical accuracy perspective, I concur that there may be translations into English that better convey the true meaning of the text that was quoted...I don't think you can seriously read too much into the choice of English translation...if you object to the religious nature of the content, the choice of translator would not mitigate the choice of content. Either an establishment has occurred consistent with the 1st (forgot the 14th in this instance...it's a red herring argument) or it has not, I don't see it...

From what yer saying, sounds like you would follow a strict interpetation of the establishment clause (sounded lawyerish didn't it). In your opinion, what would cross that line? Can a state gov't establish a religion at this time (in your opinion)? Can that religion be whatever the state so chooses (e.g. LDS in Utah)

I don't see Constitutional grounds to stop the LDS from becoming an "established religion" (similar to a "state flower" or "state bird") as long as there is no interference with the Free Exercise clause so that Utah residents who are Jewish, or Buddists, or Hindus, Muslim, Baptists, or atheists are not compelled to pledge allegience to LDS or contribute their funds to the church with the State acting as an advocate.

Do I think that it would be a good idea for a state to follow the historical example of Massachusetts and Connecticut in 21st Century USA? HECK NO!!! Even at the community level, which I see objective historical evidence not five minutes from my home (combined school house/church/town hall) and you'll see it too in Vermont, I don't see modern communities following the steps that my ancestors took to integrate those institutions, but I see no Constitutional prohibition which would prevent it should they choose to. Extremists who take a very broad view of "establishment" and a very narrow view of Free Exercise have made such integration too costly to consider in terms of legal fees...which is no way to live in a "Free" society...the tyranny of fundamentalist atheists who seek to establish their religion is to be feared far more than the simple but clear words of the Ten...

Do I think residents of most states would take kindly to the establishment of a state religion? Unlikely!! But they would raise their objections within the remedies provided in their individual states as called for by their state constitutions. It's become way too easy to get a willing suit to find a sympathetic judge to elasticize the Constitution into saying something that i-s n-o-t t-h-e-r-e. That is a very bad thing!!

We need to separate our desire to advocate or oppose a specific topic from what the Constitution actually says. Those who manipulate it for their own purposes risk seeing it happen in reverse.

I happen to think the monument in 21st Century USA is not a Constitutional violation but Justice Moore probably could have handled this situation much better...recognizing the realities of where we are in the USA today. I do admire his willingness to stand firm to his convictions and we'll see where it goes.

I'll see what I can track down for case law arguments.

Good luck, you'll need it.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[Quartus]

let me say that I really appreciate a person who can debate an issue like this without turning it into a stupid rehash of brain dead opinions & mudslinging.

Agreed! Nice discussion, gentlemen. But though interesting, I'm not sure it's getting to the core of the matter. The FF wrote plenty on this subject - more than enough to establish (to any reasonable mind) their intent when crafting the 1A. (And more than enough to justify Moore's position.) Their INTENT is pretty clear in their words, and bears NO relation to the "separation of church and state" position of our current courts.


If the plain language of a law (guided by original intent where there is some question) is not the final arbiter of what a law means, then we do not have a rule of law, we do not have a Constitution in any meaningful sense.

We have a tyranny of opinion, backed by force of arms.


That is NOT what our forbears fought and died for.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Quartus

If the plain language of a law (guided by original intent where there is some question) is not the final arbiter of what a law means, then we do not have a rule of law, we do not have a Constitution in any meaningful sense.

Agreed, which is why the fraudelent endorsement of extreme views contrary to wording of the Constitution as written and amended by use of manipulation and complicit judicial activism is dangerous to all of us, regardless of our stance on whether we believe there is a value proposition to the public display of the Ten Commandments, or whether we think Justice Moore is a "good guy" or not.

Either the Constitution has meaning based on original intent or it does not. If it is subject to the whims of anyone with enough money to hire a good suit, and a willing Judge to "revise" the Constitution outside of the parameters of lawful amendment, then why should anyone take any of it seriously?

If we can't take the Constitution seriously based on the words that are contained therein, what do we have as a nation to guarantee our freedoms?

N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Well said Quartus!

CZ52'

 

[Quartus]

This is clearly wrong. If what he says is so, then what does "separation of church and state" mean??

Well, for starters, it's not in the Constitution. Read it, Graystar - there is no such phrase in the Constitution. Not anywhere. So it really doesn't matter what it means since it is not part of our laws, except by judicial fiat.


It appears in ONE letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. In that letter, Jefferon makes very clear what his meaning is. It is a ONE WAY WALL that separates the Church form the State, meaning (according to JEfferson) that it protects the Church from any intereference by the State (meaning the Federal gummit) and IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT THE CHURCH CANNOT SEEK TO INFLUENCE THE STATE.


Let me propose a radical idea to those of you who think Judge Moore is wrong:


Read the First Amendment. I mean READ it, don't read INTO it your current understanding. Read what the text actually says.

Read Jefferson's letter. See what HE meant.

Then read some of the FF's writings wherein they express their fears of a judciary that would take it upon themselves to begin INTERPRETING the Consititution instead of enforcing it.

 

[Graystar]

Well, for starters, it's not in the Constitution. Read it, Graystar - there is no such phrase in the Constitution. Not anywhere. So it really doesn't matter what it means since it is not part of our laws, except by judicial fiat.

The Constitution has very little to do with our rights. Our rights are neither created, defined, limited, nor expanded by the Constitution. The Constitution simply recognizes certain rights, and expresses certain specific restrictions on the federal government. But just as the naming of certain rights doesn't mean we don't have others, the naming of certain restrictions upon government doesn't mean there aren't others.

If we were to follow your interpretation, then women, not being part of the militia, would have no right to carry firearms.

Oh but wait, that opening clause doesn't limit our right to keep and bear arms, right?

You can't interprete the Constitution differently as it suits your needs. It has to be one way or the other all the time. So which is it? No such thing as separation of church and state and women can't carry firearms? Or can rights exist even though the Constitution doesn't mention them?

 

[CZ52GUY]

Graystar...

The militia reference in the 2nd does not impose a prerequisite that one join the milia to enjoy the guarantee of RKBA. It describes the value proposition of RKBA based on the necessity of a free society having the militia as an asset for self-defense.

If you read the Milita Act of 1792 which codified who the militia was, White men from 18-45 were identified as being REQUIRED to make theselves available to the militia, own their own weapon, "tactical gear" and have obtained a level of proficiency by age 18. Discrete exclusions for militia participation were codified.

That act DID NOT nullify the right of non-whites, women, or 46+ individuals to KBA. The Constitution guaranteed the individual right to KBA for all persons (the sad reality being that a significant portion of the population was identified as 3/5 of a person, only for legislative apportionment...something that the 13th-15th remedied).

Your willingness to allocate to the Federal judiciary the right to manipulate the plain language of the 1st has dangerous implications. There may come a day when the makeup of the SCOTUS is very different...and their willingness to stretch and twist the Constitution will threaten something you hold dear.

The 1st contains a prohibition on the Federal legislature from creating a Church of America. It also guarantees that Free Exercise will be guaranteed to individuals within all of the United States. Ratification of the BOR allocated that responsibility to the states, nothing in the 14th alters that.

The question on the table is whether the public display of the Ten in a State Court by an elected Judge is consistent with the laws and Constitution of the state of Alabama.

No Church of America is created by this display. No Church of Alabama is created either. No Free Exercise infringement has occurred. There is no compulsary attendance, requirement to pledge allegience to it as a condition of citizenship, nor does the government of Alabama act as a fiscal agent on behalf of any "established" religion.

Where is the standing for the Federal judiciary to rule that there is a Constitutional violation? Only by imagining a prohibition on "religious promotion" which the 1st D-O-E-S N-O-T C-O-N-T-A-I-N.

There is no Wall of Separation written into the Constitution which guarantees athiests a God-Free public square...it is being written on their behalf in contradiction to what the 1st actually contains based on resources available to support than notion and a despicable activist Federal judiciary acting on their behalf.

The Constitution says what it says...the manipulation of it damages us all.

The same type of manipulation that "militia membership" is a requirement for an individual right guaranteed in the 2nd is necessary to draw the conclusion that an interpretation of convenience can be applied to twist the establishment clause beyond recognition.

The RKBA is threatened by this type of activity, the original post is correct in presenting the risk.

Regards,

CZ52'

 

[johnpmahler]

been doing some research...found a Madison reference that seems to fit the bill/hit the nail on the head/hit the spot/whathaveyou..


"In 1833, just three years before his death, Madison observed in a letter to the Rev. Jasper Adams, “t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against the trespasses on its legal rights by others.â€
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

not sure it answers anything though....

can we agree on a point here: is the judge acting as an individual citizen, or as a representative of the state? In my opinion he is acting as a representative of the state.

Clearly, he can put the monument in his front yard (acting as a private citizen), equally clearly he cannot demand that everyone working in his courthouse do the same or lose their job. Where is the line?

Another question for you : many states allocate a home to the govenor (some city's do the same for the mayor). Can the govenor place a patently religious symbol in the front yard?

 

[CZ52GUY]

New development...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95313,00.html

Assuming the associate justices acted within the governance boundaries of the State Supreme Court of Alabama, this was the body that should make the decision, not the Federal judiciary...that they may have done so based on intimidation imposed upon them by the Federal government is regretable, but I would be respectful of the decision this body made...assuming it is in compliance with Alabama state law.

CZ52'

 

[Graystar]

Your willingness to allocate to the Federal judiciary the right to manipulate the plain language of the 1st has dangerous implications.

I am doing no such thing. What I am saying is that our freedom of religion cannot be violated by the government in any manner, not just the manner outlined in the Constitution.

It is your view that has extremely dangerous implications, as such a view reduces our rights, and the governments handling of them, to what is written on paper and nothing more.

What if there was no 1st Amendment? Are you saying that we would not have any religious freedom? Are you saying that it would then be okay for the federal court to rule as it did?

 

[CZ52GUY]

Graystar...

I am doing no such thing. What I am saying is that our freedom of religion cannot be violated by the government in any manner, not just the manner outlined in the Constitution.

Perhaps I misunderstood you...I'm still having difficulty with your assertions based on the fact that the FF felt so strongly that they felt they were compelled to articulate individual rights discretely.

I concur with their decision to articulate discrete individual rights as are captured within the BOR. I've heard some say..."the rights are inalienable, therefore the BOR is irrelevant one way or another". What I'm saying, is that the Constitution cannot be used as a trojan horse weapon to refute inalienable rights, especially by twisting plain language wording and imagining that which it D-O-E-S N-O-T S-A-Y.

It is your view that has extremely dangerous implications, as such a view reduces our rights, and the governments handling of them, to what is written on paper and nothing more

I obviously disagree that it is dangerous to expect that the Federal judiciary comply with the Constitution that created it, and to arbitrate disputes regarding Constitutional matters based on the language of the document and the historical context that gave birth to it.

What if there was no 1st Amendment? Are you saying that we would not have any religious freedom? Are you saying that it would then be okay for the federal court to rule as it did?

I'm saying once again that I concur with the FF decision to discretely articulate those individual rights that were so very precious within the BOR, not as a ruling entity granting a privilege, but as an elected body acting upon the insistence of the governed.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[CZ52GUY]

Mr. Mahler...

been doing some research...found a Madison reference that seems to fit the bill/hit the nail on the head/hit the spot/whathaveyou..


"In 1833, just three years before his death, Madison observed in a letter to the Rev. Jasper Adams, “t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against the trespasses on its legal rights by others.â€
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

not sure it answers anything though....

I had not read that quote...considering that Madison is credited with authorship of the BOR, I believe his observations are very relevant.

can we agree on a point here: is the judge acting as an individual citizen, or as a representative of the state? In my opinion he is acting as a representative of the state.

I believe he is acting within his office as Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court. As a private citizen, he has no authority to appropriate funds, commission the creation of the artifact, and direct its placement within the rotunda.

Clearly, he can put the monument in his front yard (acting as a private citizen), equally clearly he cannot demand that everyone working in his courthouse do the same or lose their job. Where is the line?

I concur he cannot expect Court employees to purchase ~3 ton monuments to be placed in their yards at his direction...their private property is beyond his jurisdiction as to "lawn ornaments".

I don't see the relevance of your point...government officials are often allocated the authority to appropriate funds for display of objects that the public will see. The relevant question is whether the content selected violates Constitutional prohibitions...I contend the 1st contains no such prohibition on public display of that content on public property because no religion is established, and no free exercise rights have been violated.

Another question for you : many states allocate a home to the govenor (some city's do the same for the mayor). Can the govenor place a patently religious symbol in the front yard?

I don't believe the Constitution prohibits it.

To take it a step further, should Joseph Lieberman be elected President, and choose to avoid lighting the National Christmas Tree, and celebrate Hannakuh without shame within the White House (or to invite young people to observe Jewish traditions on the grounds) I see no Constitutional violation. Judaism will not have been established as the Church of America, my taxes will not be collected for the benefit of that church, conversion to Judaism will not be a prerequisite for citizenship, and my freedom to exercise my right to practice a different religion will not be threatened.

The BOR was and still should be about guaranteeing freedoms, not imposing restrictions to them.

Could I ask the reference source where you found the Madison letter?

Thanks in advance,

CZ52'

 

[Graystar]

especially by twisting plain language wording and imagining that which it D-O-E-S N-O-T S-A-Y.

I'm sorry, I'm still unclear on your position. Are you asserting that the *only* limitation on government is that it cannot pass a law establishing a religion? That a government can recognize a religion in any other way it wants?

So if it so happens that all the elected officials of a state are Islamic fundamentalist, are you okay with a monument to the Qur'an? Adultery is still a crime in some states...what if the legislature sets a death sentence for adultery? What if the judges just happen to impose harsher sentences on those who are of the Islamic faith?

None of these actions constitute a law establishing religion. However, all these actions violate the religious rights of non-islamic people. The actions of these judges and legislatures have, in essence, established a religious state.

Our freedoms are broad and cannot be legislated away, even if 100% of a state's population desires to do so. Our governments are governments of delegated powers, and nowhere do I see the power to recognize a god delegate to any government within this country.

 

[Quartus]

to what is written on paper and nothing more.

You have a very different view of that value of writing things on paper than did the Founding Fathers. The entire point of having a written constitution is lost if we do not hold our government to the bounds of what is written.

This the FF understood and wrote about copiously. See the Ferderalist and anti-Federalsit papers for many examples. BOTH sides wanted WRITTEN GUARANTEES against the Federal government doing things they didn't want it doing. They disagreed on what some of those things should be, and they disagreed on what safeguards were sufficient, but the BOTH agreed on the necessity (and therefore, obviously, the usefulness) of a written document to CONSTRAIN THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT. Or as Jefferson put it, to "bind them with the chains of the Constitution".

And they expressed their fear of, and the damage to liberty that would follow, a judiciary that would take upon itself the "task" of interpreting the Constitution instead of enforcing it.

That's what has been done with the 1A, in reading into it a "separation of church and State" that the FF never intended.

As CZ has well pointed out, your argument about the militia suffers the same flaw as your argument about the 1A - it assumes an interpretation of that is not in the text, and which cannot be supported from the writings of the FF. It is a straw man.

 

[Graystar]

You have a very different view of that value of writing things on paper than did the Founding Fathers. The entire point of having a written constitution is lost if we do not hold our government to the bounds of what is written.

I am all for holding our government to the bounds of what is written. Where I think we differ is that you believe those to be the *only* bounds, where as I believe that there are additional bounds. As the Constitution did not create our rights, I can't see how it can define the bounds of government infringement upon our rights.

It is well established that a bill of rights is not law. It is simply an expression of what already exist. As such, a bill of rights, in of itself, has no power. Everything written in the Bill Of Rights would be so even if the document never existed. To limit restriction on government actions, based on the Bill Of Rights, is to give government a power it does not have.

Justice Moore never had the power to install a religious monument in a public building. The Federal ruling corrects this abuse of power. The ruling protects citizens against abuse of power by the State, as is the duty of the Federal government.

 

[Quartus]

Are you asserting that the *only* limitation on government is that it cannot pass a law establishing a religion? That a government can recognize a religion in any other way it wants?

You need to learn something about how America is set up. We have a Federal government, and the Constitution was designed to define and to limit that government. We also have State governments which have their OWN Constitutions. These are separate institutions.

We can't have a sensible conversation about what the U.S. Constitution says about "a government". Actually, THAT phrase could be include the government of South Africa. So let's be clear that we are talking about the Federal government of the United States.

And the answer to your question is YES. The text is perfectly clear. "CONGRESS shall make no law". The idea that there is somehow an "establishment of religion" taking place when a government official or employee prays, or reads a religious document at a public gathering, or even sets up a monument, is an invention of the Twentieth Century. It has no historical support before that. Quite the opposite. And even since the invention of that ridiculous doctrine, SCOTUS has had no problem with obviously Christian artwork, prayers, and even quotations from the Bible in Federal government buildings. So this judge's ruling goes far beyond what SCOTUS has ruled in the past.

Nor did the FF intend to tell any state that THEY could not have a State religion. It would be no violation of the U.S. Constitution for Delaware to declare Christadlephianism as the State Church, and require all officers of the state to swear allegiance to its tenets. They could even ban non-members from their state.

So if it so happens that all the elected officials of a state are Islamic fundamentalist, are you okay with a monument to the Qur'an?
Adultery is still a crime in some states...what if the legislature sets a death sentence for adultery? What if the judges just happen to impose harsher sentences on those who are of the Islamic faith?

None of that would be addressed by the U.S. Constitution as it was written. It simply did not tell the States what to do in such matters. However, I think you'll find that all of the individual State Constitutions have freedom of religion clauses in them that would prohibit that kind of legislation. But NOT because it would violate the U.S. Constitution, but because the citizens of those States wanted it that way. I like it that way myself. But it is no business of the Federal Government.

 

[Graystar]

Nor did the FF intend to tell any state that THEY could not have a State religion. It would be no violation of the U.S. Constitution for Delaware to declare Christadlephianism as the State Church, and require all officers of the state to swear allegiance to its tenets. They could even ban non-members from their state.

Okay, I understand your position.

 

[Quartus]

When you realize that some of the states came into existence AS A FUNCTION OF RELIGIOUS DISTINCTIVES, it's not hard to see where the FF were coming from. That history was not too far behind them.


Of course, we haven't really gotten into the ramifications of the 14th Amendment on all this, though someone mentioned it earlier.


Shall we have a go at it?


Here's an interesting piece that I just ran across:

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=282

Legal scholar Gene Healy has made a powerful argument in favor of abolishing the Fourteenth Amend- ment to the US Constitution. When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the War for Southern Independence, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule.

The purpose of this, according to one Republican congressman, was to coerce Southern legislators to vote for the amendment "at the point of a bayonet." President Andrew Johnson called this tactic "absolute despotism," the likes of which had not been exercised by any British monarch "for more than 500 years." For his outspokenness Johnson was impeached by the Republican Congress.

BTW, I like your handle, Graystar. Has a nice ring to it.

 

[CZ52GUY]

the legitimacy of the 14th...

Out of courtesy to the original poster to this thread, I would suggest that a discussion on that item is off topic here and would be better discussed in a separate thread...as I understand the "etiquette" employed here at The High Road...

Take it somewhere else and I'd be interested in participating...

My 2 cents...

CZ52'

P.S. BTW, your response to Graystar was well stated and measured in its tone, very well presented!

 

[Quartus]

Agreed. It's relevant, but would be better addressed in another thread. Especially since it has broader implications than this issue.


Of course, there's the question of its legitimacy, and then there's the question of its proper application if we assume its legitimacy.

I've actually got to do some work now , so I'm off for now...



(Well, yes, I know there are those who would say I'm just OFF, but that's yet another discussion! )

 

[Quartus]

I should add one thing to chew on:

When the FF wrote about "religion", they usually meant the various denominations of the Christian faith. (Nominally Christian, anyway. They used the term broadly. Certainly Jefferson and Franklin could not be called "Christian" by any orthodox standard.)

Had they foreseen the rise of the various non-Christian religions (eastern religions, Islam, etc.) they just might have written a ban on them into the Constitution. Certainly a broad reading of their writings would make it clear that such a sentiment would have been possible, if not likely.


But they didn't, so they didn't. Nor am I suggesting that WE should! I mention it only as an aid in understanding their mindset.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Let me suggest … the Theocratic State Project!

~G. Fink