Graystar
Member
To believe that laws against killing and stealing did not exist before the writing of the ten commandments is textbook ignorance.
The 10 Commandments & Alabama
- Thread starter CMichael
- Start date
- Status
tiberius
Member
You worked on the Sabbath – Go to Jail!
You’re a Hindu – Go to Jail!
You back talked your parents – Go to jail!
You would like to have a BMW just like your neighbor – Go to jail!
You cheated on your wife – Go to jail!
All hail theocracy.
You’re a Hindu – Go to Jail!
You back talked your parents – Go to jail!
You would like to have a BMW just like your neighbor – Go to jail!
You cheated on your wife – Go to jail!
All hail theocracy.
cuchulainn
Member
Actually, our laws are rooted in ancient Germanic, Celtic and Roman laws, which had proscriptions against murder, theft and false witness long before those civilizations became Judeo-Christianized.
They moved (separated) it from a state facility. You are saying that separation of church and state bars separation of church icons from a state facility
That doesn't make this right (or wrong).
And if there is to be a TRUE separation of church and state, the state has no authority to rule on a church issue.
If the good judge had installed his 'display' in a church, we would never have heard of him.
By golly... I wonder... Is it possible that Moore is, gasp, seeking attention?
Seriously, I have no axe to grind here - I believe the Ten Commandments to be as good a basic rule set as has ever been published.
However, to make them a central feature of a Government Building, in my mind, explicitly endorses Christianity. That's close enough to Government establishment of (a particular) religion to be unconstitutional.
Moore and his fanclub are not 'standing up for God'. They're standing up for themselves, and for the transformation of the United States of America into a Theocracy, ruled by enlightened folks such as themselves.
db
If the good judge had installed his 'display' in a church, we would never have heard of him.
By golly... I wonder... Is it possible that Moore is, gasp, seeking attention?
Seriously, I have no axe to grind here - I believe the Ten Commandments to be as good a basic rule set as has ever been published.
However, to make them a central feature of a Government Building, in my mind, explicitly endorses Christianity. That's close enough to Government establishment of (a particular) religion to be unconstitutional.
Moore and his fanclub are not 'standing up for God'. They're standing up for themselves, and for the transformation of the United States of America into a Theocracy, ruled by enlightened folks such as themselves.
db
Mike Irwin
Member
"1) It is the basis for your current law system whether you believe in God or not 2) it's one of the oldest sets of laws on written record 3) it's still just as usable today as it was 1000 years ago."
1. Incorrect. That would be English Common Law, which has little connection to the ecclesiastic law of the same period. In fact, Common Law and church law were FREQUENTLY in conflict in English society, and was one of the major bones of contentions between Church and King starting as early as the 10th century.
Of course in Louisiana many of the laws are still based on the Code Napoleon, which is purely civil law.
2. Hammurabian Law and the Codes of Brehon (essentially Irish Common Law) are the oldest codified laws that attach to entire societies, as opposed to a religious group.
3. Yes, as a moral guide on living your life, but that still fails to make the 10 commandments a basis for codified law.
1. Incorrect. That would be English Common Law, which has little connection to the ecclesiastic law of the same period. In fact, Common Law and church law were FREQUENTLY in conflict in English society, and was one of the major bones of contentions between Church and King starting as early as the 10th century.
Of course in Louisiana many of the laws are still based on the Code Napoleon, which is purely civil law.
2. Hammurabian Law and the Codes of Brehon (essentially Irish Common Law) are the oldest codified laws that attach to entire societies, as opposed to a religious group.
3. Yes, as a moral guide on living your life, but that still fails to make the 10 commandments a basis for codified law.
Intune
Member
Methinks some quaint, wrongful assumptions are being made. Oh, well.
Our FFs were some VERY intelligent fellows. Amazingly so.
"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing His religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of against." (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...." (John Adams, 1787)
May God please grant the gift of reason and the sense to use it!
Our FFs were some VERY intelligent fellows. Amazingly so.
"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing His religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of against." (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...." (John Adams, 1787)
May God please grant the gift of reason and the sense to use it!
El Tejon
Member
While Chief Justice Foghorn Leghorn is grandstanding in a most, I say, I say, distasteful way for his run for Gov. or whatever, I find it surprising that none of his supporters have raised the issue of what is posted behind the bar in the United States Supreme Court.
HINT: It's 10 rules and they are not gun safety rules.
HINT: It's 10 rules and they are not gun safety rules.
Mike Irwin
Member
Tejon,
We had this discussion, and it's pretty clear that that the situations are ENTIRELY different, as discussed in this thread --
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30485&highlight=moses
Simply put, in the Supreme Court, the depiction of Moses holding the tables is done as an indication of his place as an important law giver, NOT as a religious figure.
If he were there as a strictly Judeo-Christian religious figure, then the 10 Commandments would be replicated in their entirety (they're not), and non-Judeo-Christian lawgivers, such as Hammurabi and Mohammed wouldn't be included either.
Judge Moore's 10 Commandments statue was placed as an indication of the role of a Judeo-Christian God as the foundation for the Court's power. That's simply wrong.
We had this discussion, and it's pretty clear that that the situations are ENTIRELY different, as discussed in this thread --
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30485&highlight=moses
Simply put, in the Supreme Court, the depiction of Moses holding the tables is done as an indication of his place as an important law giver, NOT as a religious figure.
If he were there as a strictly Judeo-Christian religious figure, then the 10 Commandments would be replicated in their entirety (they're not), and non-Judeo-Christian lawgivers, such as Hammurabi and Mohammed wouldn't be included either.
Judge Moore's 10 Commandments statue was placed as an indication of the role of a Judeo-Christian God as the foundation for the Court's power. That's simply wrong.
tiberius
Member
El Tejon,
I don't believe that is correct. The doors have a depiction of the tables with the Roman Numerals on them and there is a frieze showing historic lawgivers. I do not believe that the actual cammandments are inscribed anywhere in the building.
I don't believe that is correct. The doors have a depiction of the tables with the Roman Numerals on them and there is a frieze showing historic lawgivers. I do not believe that the actual cammandments are inscribed anywhere in the building.
tiberius
Member
Do'h - slow on the draw.
El Tejon
Member
Mike, you are correct, of course, but I thought it unusual that no one in support of CJFL has raised it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Really, I don't see what part of this is unclear.
How has the 10 Commandments statue violated the "establishment" clause- not the official misconstrued judicial interpretation of it- but the actual amendment? How has Judge Moore violated a clear restriction placed on Congress to make no law respecting an establishment of religion?
To not see that is the same to me as those who cannot see that umpteen laws regarding firearms have been written because lawmakers can't quite figure out the meaning of "shall not be infringed".
How has the Federal judge in this case determined that Judge Moore and the people of the State of Alabama have no right under Federal law (laws that Congress shall not make) to have their statue?
Get over your prejudice against and/or fear of religion (the way antis need to get past their prejudice and fear of firearms) and read what is written.
:banghead:
Really, I don't see what part of this is unclear.
How has the 10 Commandments statue violated the "establishment" clause- not the official misconstrued judicial interpretation of it- but the actual amendment? How has Judge Moore violated a clear restriction placed on Congress to make no law respecting an establishment of religion?
To not see that is the same to me as those who cannot see that umpteen laws regarding firearms have been written because lawmakers can't quite figure out the meaning of "shall not be infringed".
How has the Federal judge in this case determined that Judge Moore and the people of the State of Alabama have no right under Federal law (laws that Congress shall not make) to have their statue?
Get over your prejudice against and/or fear of religion (the way antis need to get past their prejudice and fear of firearms) and read what is written.
:banghead:
Lots of inconsistencies in the govt.'s position.
This engraving has been on the oak doors in the supreme court for quite some time:
Comments?
When did the 1st amendment establishment clause get generalized from applying to congress, as written, to apparently applying to every level (state, local) of government. Citations?
I'm struck how the two operative words "prohibiting" (the free exercise therof), in the first amendment; and "infringing", in the second amendment...have developed legal realities far different from their dictionary meanings.
In the first case, a granite monument prohibits anyone from exercising their chosen faith how? I see nothing remotely resembling the scenario offered by tiberious: > You worked on the Sabbath – Go to Jail! <
In the second case, how are upteen laws, restrictions, etc. of the right to keep and bear arms, at various governmental levels, NOT an "infringement"?
What I'm saying is that the concept of "infringement" should be triggered much earlier than the establishment of a "prohibition", if words have any meaning at all. Yet, hordes of legal scholars, smart judges and lawyers quote chapter and verse that is just exactly the opposite, in terms of legal realities. How is this possible?
This engraving has been on the oak doors in the supreme court for quite some time:
Comments?
When did the 1st amendment establishment clause get generalized from applying to congress, as written, to apparently applying to every level (state, local) of government. Citations?
I'm struck how the two operative words "prohibiting" (the free exercise therof), in the first amendment; and "infringing", in the second amendment...have developed legal realities far different from their dictionary meanings.
In the first case, a granite monument prohibits anyone from exercising their chosen faith how? I see nothing remotely resembling the scenario offered by tiberious: > You worked on the Sabbath – Go to Jail! <
In the second case, how are upteen laws, restrictions, etc. of the right to keep and bear arms, at various governmental levels, NOT an "infringement"?
What I'm saying is that the concept of "infringement" should be triggered much earlier than the establishment of a "prohibition", if words have any meaning at all. Yet, hordes of legal scholars, smart judges and lawyers quote chapter and verse that is just exactly the opposite, in terms of legal realities. How is this possible?
Keith
Member
Everybody here, and all of the talking heads on TV, and even the courts... are getting distracted by the minutae and completely missing the main point!
The ONLY legal and constitutional issue is what the First Amendment says - not some dubious legal chain of interpretations that lead off into outer space.
If in doubt, go back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights!
Here's what the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Did someone pass a law? Nope.
Did some a establish a religion? Nope.
Does it say anything about a "Separation of Church and State"? Nope.
Did someone prohibit the free exercise of religion? Yes; the court when they ordered the removal of the monument!
Now, I'm an atheist and nothing would please me more than for people to leave their religion at home. But, clearly, the Bill of Rights gives people the right to "freely exercise" their religion as long as no official religion is established by the state!
It doesn't matter if our legal system is based on the ten commandments or the lyrics from the latest Phish CD.
It doesn't matter whether the monument in question is Jewish, Christian or Judaeo-Christian.
It doesn't matter what this judge or that court "feels" about the issue.
What matters is the bald statement in the first amendment, and nobody needs a law degree to sort that out.
The state of Alabama did NOT establish a state religion, so there is no legal or constitutional foundation to order that monument to be removed.
The monument IS an expression of religion (at least in a general way) so ordering its removal is a clear violation of the first amendment that they claim to be upholding!
Keith
The ONLY legal and constitutional issue is what the First Amendment says - not some dubious legal chain of interpretations that lead off into outer space.
If in doubt, go back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights!
Here's what the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Did someone pass a law? Nope.
Did some a establish a religion? Nope.
Does it say anything about a "Separation of Church and State"? Nope.
Did someone prohibit the free exercise of religion? Yes; the court when they ordered the removal of the monument!
Now, I'm an atheist and nothing would please me more than for people to leave their religion at home. But, clearly, the Bill of Rights gives people the right to "freely exercise" their religion as long as no official religion is established by the state!
It doesn't matter if our legal system is based on the ten commandments or the lyrics from the latest Phish CD.
It doesn't matter whether the monument in question is Jewish, Christian or Judaeo-Christian.
It doesn't matter what this judge or that court "feels" about the issue.
What matters is the bald statement in the first amendment, and nobody needs a law degree to sort that out.
The state of Alabama did NOT establish a state religion, so there is no legal or constitutional foundation to order that monument to be removed.
The monument IS an expression of religion (at least in a general way) so ordering its removal is a clear violation of the first amendment that they claim to be upholding!
Keith
cuchulainn
Member
I'm quite religious, thank you very much. In fact, I'm a Christian.
Don't assume that people who disagree with you on this matter are afraid of religion -- we're just saying that placement of a particular religion's icon on a goverment building by a government official crosses the lines made in the 1st Amt.
I personally have no problem with the 10Cs on the statehouse. Nonetheless, I recognize that doing so violates the Constitution.
The 19th Century. See the 14th Amendment
cuchulainn
Member
It was placed there by a goverment official. You are saying separation of church and state bars separating church icons from state buildings.
Keith
Member
Did congress pass a law establishing a state religion?
If not, then I fail to see how putting a religious mounument in a court house is "violation of the constitution".
Does removal of the monument infringe upon the free exercise of religion? I think it certainly does, so ordering its removal is the violation!
Keith
Mike Irwin
Member
Hammer,
Read the discussion at the link that I posted.
There's a significant difference.
Read the discussion at the link that I posted.
There's a significant difference.
cuchulainn
Member
Yeah, and the 2nd Amt says nothing about firing guns, just keeping and bearing them.
Separation of church and state is as necessary to the establishment clause as firing guns is to the keep and bear clause.
I have no problem with the 10 commandments monument on First Amendment grounds. Doesn't seem to apply.
The question to me isn't one of religion, but of the right of an individual to dump something on public property without permission.
The monument should be moved and the judge charged with littering or unlawful dumping. Not his land, so he doesn't get to put up his pretty pieces of rock.
Again, not a state-religion issue; a property rights issue.
The question to me isn't one of religion, but of the right of an individual to dump something on public property without permission.
The monument should be moved and the judge charged with littering or unlawful dumping. Not his land, so he doesn't get to put up his pretty pieces of rock.
Again, not a state-religion issue; a property rights issue.
Keith
Member
I'm not saying anything about "seperation of church and state" since that concept has no constitutional foundation whatsoever.
The establishing clause prohibits the recognition of a state religion - as in the Church of England where non-members were forced to support the institution.
A public official putting up a monument is not a violation unless the taxpayers are forced to fund it. That's not the case.
Keith
cuchulainn
Member
1) The 1A applies to the states and has for over 130 years
2) See my point above about the RIGHT to separation of C&S (though not mentioned) being necessary to the establisment clause of the 1st as much firing guns (though not mentioned) being as necessary to the keep and bear clause of the 2nd.
cuchulainn
Member
Yep, and firing your gun has nothing to do with the constituion, which only says "keep and bear."
And you might want to consider the role of the 9th Amt here. People have the RIGHT to having their goverment and religion separate. The 9th protects that as much as the 1st.
Mike Irwin
Member
"Does removal of the monument infringe upon the free exercise of religion? I think it certainly does, so ordering its removal is the violation!"
How is it a violation of free exercise of religion?
There are places where people can worship as they see fit...
They're called temples, churches, mosques, shrines, etc.
The placement of a single religion's religious paraphenalia (sp?) in a court house, as opposed to a church, is a critical difference, and removing those representations, IF they are placed there for strictly religious purposes (Judge Moore's sole intent), is not a violation of anyone's religious freedom.
The purpose of a court house is to exercise justice based on codified law, not to be a place of worship for a single group of people.
"The establishing clause prohibits the recognition of a state religion..."
Very true. And the mechanism of the state, by allowing the placement of the religious artifacts of a single religious group, as opposed combining those from many religious in a secular manner (as is done in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives) gives the tacit imprimature of state sponsorship. And that is a violation.
For example and in other words, you can't state with any credulity that you in fact don't have a favorite cartridge when you have multiple firearms, all chambered for the same cartridge, and to the exclusion of all others.
How is it a violation of free exercise of religion?
There are places where people can worship as they see fit...
They're called temples, churches, mosques, shrines, etc.
The placement of a single religion's religious paraphenalia (sp?) in a court house, as opposed to a church, is a critical difference, and removing those representations, IF they are placed there for strictly religious purposes (Judge Moore's sole intent), is not a violation of anyone's religious freedom.
The purpose of a court house is to exercise justice based on codified law, not to be a place of worship for a single group of people.
"The establishing clause prohibits the recognition of a state religion..."
Very true. And the mechanism of the state, by allowing the placement of the religious artifacts of a single religious group, as opposed combining those from many religious in a secular manner (as is done in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives) gives the tacit imprimature of state sponsorship. And that is a violation.
For example and in other words, you can't state with any credulity that you in fact don't have a favorite cartridge when you have multiple firearms, all chambered for the same cartridge, and to the exclusion of all others.
Keith
Member
Another one completely missing the point!
When did the federal government take over litter enforcement on state land?
If the people of the state of Alabame don't like the monument or the judge, then they should remove the monument or the judge!
The issue is the federal government violating the first amendment while claiming to be enforcing the first amendment.
Keith
- Status