cuchulainn
Member
1)The 1st applies to the states.
2) The establishment clause is meaningless without separation (just like the keep and bear clause is meaningless without the unmentioned firing)
The 10 Commandments & Alabama
- Thread starter CMichael
- Start date
- Status
2) The establishment clause is meaningless without separation (just like the keep and bear clause is meaningless without the unmentioned firing)
Keith
Member
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the codicile to the 1st Amendment that defined "free exercise" as limited to approved buildings and designated places.
Perhaps you could point that out to me?
And which single religion would the Ten Commandments apply to? And even if it did apply to a single religion (which it doesn't), what would that have to do with Congress establising a religion?
Keith
Keith
Member
Yes it does - READ IT!
Keith,
I agree that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Nothing to do with the First.
But...
If a Judge is allowed to leave a big chunk of rock on the courthouse lawn, should I not be allowed to set up a giant statue of myself right next to it?
If the judge is not cited for illegal dumping or whatever their charge is for me throwing an old sofa or pile of rubble onto the same spot, then it is an issue of equal protection.
I agree that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Nothing to do with the First.
But...
If a Judge is allowed to leave a big chunk of rock on the courthouse lawn, should I not be allowed to set up a giant statue of myself right next to it?
If the judge is not cited for illegal dumping or whatever their charge is for me throwing an old sofa or pile of rubble onto the same spot, then it is an issue of equal protection.
Keith
Member
The two amendments are similar in that the first half is "interpreted" by some to limit or modify the second half of the statement.
You would not argue that "a militia being necessary" overturns "shall not be infringed" would you?
Yet, you argue that "Congress shall make no... establishment of religion" overturns: "free exercise of religion".
You're thinking like a liberal! It means what it says - congress shall not establish a state religion (including state congress') AND shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion!
Keith
cuchulainn
Member
Keith,
Separation is necessary to keeping the establisment clause strong.
...just like allowing people to fire their guns is necessary to the keep and bear clause strong.
Just because a concept is in the amendment does not mean it is not protected by the amendment -- especially when that act is necessary to keeping the amendment strong.
If you are correct, then the government can bar us from EVER firing our guns. Firing is not mentioned.
...and all that doesn't even consider the right to separation of church and state under the 9th Amendment.
Separation is necessary to keeping the establisment clause strong.
...just like allowing people to fire their guns is necessary to the keep and bear clause strong.
Just because a concept is in the amendment does not mean it is not protected by the amendment -- especially when that act is necessary to keeping the amendment strong.
If you are correct, then the government can bar us from EVER firing our guns. Firing is not mentioned.
...and all that doesn't even consider the right to separation of church and state under the 9th Amendment.
Keith
Member
OK, then Miller vs US is necessary to keep the militia clause "strong". Don't you see the double standard?
It just means what it says - its a clause prohibiting government from establishing a state funded religion. No more and no less than that!
The free exercise clause is just as valid as the establsihment clause - you can't use one to limit the other!
Keith
cuchulainn
Member
A government official using a government facility to promote his personal religion is not exercise of religion. It is government promotion of religion. Promotion of religion cannot be separated from establishment of religion.
Edited to fix third from last word.
Mike Irwin
Member
In this case, if you've been following any of this at all, Keith, you'd be able to comprehend that Judge Moore is CLEARLY espousing a Christian doctrine with his monument. His own statements clearly make that case.
So far, as far as I have been able to determine, only Christians have been flocking to his defense. No Jews, no Muslims. Although the 10 Commandments are essential to their religious dogma, there's no role or room for them in Judge Moore's narrowly defined world.
"I'm sorry, I guess I missed the codicile to the 1st Amendment that defined "free exercise" as limited to approved buildings and designated places."
Your inability to grasp the differences between a courthouse as a functionary of the state (government), and the judge as a functionary of the state, as opposed to a group of people worshiping at a state building, is truly frightening.
Judge Moore, as a Judge, is a functionary of the state. He doesn't sit in an ecclesiastic court. He is the agent of state, and as such must act within the restrictions of the laws of the state. As an agent of the state, Judge Moore has no legal right to attempt to establish the courthouse as a state religious icon, or to install in the courthouse icons of a single religion when their purpose is solely religious.
So far, as far as I have been able to determine, only Christians have been flocking to his defense. No Jews, no Muslims. Although the 10 Commandments are essential to their religious dogma, there's no role or room for them in Judge Moore's narrowly defined world.
"I'm sorry, I guess I missed the codicile to the 1st Amendment that defined "free exercise" as limited to approved buildings and designated places."
Your inability to grasp the differences between a courthouse as a functionary of the state (government), and the judge as a functionary of the state, as opposed to a group of people worshiping at a state building, is truly frightening.
Judge Moore, as a Judge, is a functionary of the state. He doesn't sit in an ecclesiastic court. He is the agent of state, and as such must act within the restrictions of the laws of the state. As an agent of the state, Judge Moore has no legal right to attempt to establish the courthouse as a state religious icon, or to install in the courthouse icons of a single religion when their purpose is solely religious.
cuchulainn
Member
Keith,
It says nothing about funding. How come you get to add words?
It does not limit the prohibition simply to official establishment, but to "regarding the establisment." How come you are ignoring the word "regarding" which brings in the separation of C&S? A government action that promotes a religion is "regarding the establisment of [that] religion" even if it does not officially establish the religion.
It says nothing about funding. How come you get to add words?
It does not limit the prohibition simply to official establishment, but to "regarding the establisment." How come you are ignoring the word "regarding" which brings in the separation of C&S? A government action that promotes a religion is "regarding the establisment of [that] religion" even if it does not officially establish the religion.
1) Miller vs US is not a right, it is a court case. Separation of C&S is a right (albeit unmentioned).
cuchulainn
Member
Thank you, Mike, for saying very clearly what I've been trying to convey.
Keith
Member
If you'd read the 1st Amendment you'd realize that it protects the right of any citizen to espouse a religion, government official or not.
It only prevents a government body from establishing a religion!
And of course, the ten commandments are from the old testament of the bible; a book that is recognized by many hundreds of religions.
Then you are very easily frightened! Perhaps you should see someone about that?
Of course, the first amendment doesn't prohibit state functionaries from having or espousing religious views. It merely prohibits them from establishing a state religion.
Keith
cuchulainn
Member
He is not simply espousing them. He is a government official promoting them as the basis of goverment action. That is establishment.
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.
And what "particular" religion is represented by the 10 Commandments?
"We the Million Moms don't think that you, the law abiding" should be allowed to have guns. Why? Because we don't like them. Because we are afraid of them. Because we know that gunowners are mindless cretins who may shoot up our kids."
Fear/prejudice/ignorance/misinterpretation or whatever the particular reason- it is a misreading of the first amendment as much as antis misread and wishfully misinterpret the second.
As far as "saying that placement of a particular religion's icon on a government building by a government official crosses the lines made in the 1st Amt"- just what part of the amendment talks about "particular religions", "government buildings" or "government officials"?
The "firing" of firearms is a reasonable inference from the ability to keep and bear arms.
The nonsense about separation of church and state is a complete, deliberate, and misguided reinterpretation of the FF's clear words.
And what "particular" religion is represented by the 10 Commandments?
"We the Million Moms don't think that you, the law abiding" should be allowed to have guns. Why? Because we don't like them. Because we are afraid of them. Because we know that gunowners are mindless cretins who may shoot up our kids."
Fear/prejudice/ignorance/misinterpretation or whatever the particular reason- it is a misreading of the first amendment as much as antis misread and wishfully misinterpret the second.
As far as "saying that placement of a particular religion's icon on a government building by a government official crosses the lines made in the 1st Amt"- just what part of the amendment talks about "particular religions", "government buildings" or "government officials"?
The "firing" of firearms is a reasonable inference from the ability to keep and bear arms.
The nonsense about separation of church and state is a complete, deliberate, and misguided reinterpretation of the FF's clear words.
Keith
Member
I think it went over your head - or I didn't articulate my point very well... Miller is often cited as an argument to limit the right to keep and bear arms since it leans on the "militia" clause of the second amendment rather than the "shall not be infinged" portion associated with the individual right.
I think you would agree that it is hypocritical to use the militia clause as a hammer against the individual liberties portion of the sentence that follows.
Yet, when talking about the very similarly constructed sentence in the first amendment you (and many other people) reverse the logic. The first part (make no law ... establishing) of the statement should not be used as a hammer against the second part (prohibiting the free exercise...).
Do you follow me? You may not like this judge displaying this religious symbol - and frankly, neither do I! But our "feelings" don't count - what counts is the very simple sentence in the Bill of Rights.
Just read the first amendment! It's not complicated...
Keith
Keith
Member
Really? The judge has jailed someone for adultery? For making graven images? What has he done?
Keith
In keeping with compassionate conservatism and the example set by an honorable and truthful Administration, I submit that the good Judge's supporters just come out and explain their goals.
Here's a hint: it's not religious tolerance...
From http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8728
…when asked on CNN whether principles of religious equality would lead him to support an Islamic monument similar to the two-ton commandments, Moore replied, "This nation was founded upon the laws of God, not upon the Koran." In the Christian press, Moore went even further: "This country wasn't founded upon Allah; it was founded upon the Holy Bible, and the question is whether we [Christians] are going to take a stand."
…
Fortunately, Moore is wrong when he argues that America's Constitution finds its roots in the Christian Bible, but unfortunately, that doesn't stop him from handing down opinions based on his own religious beliefs. In February of 2002, Moore ruled against a lesbian mother in a custody battle with an allegedly abusive father, calling her sexual orientation "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."
Such a non-legal ruling, combined with his refusal to comply with the lawful order to remove his monument -- to say nothing of his repeated assertion to the Christian press that God placed him in office -- show that Moore identifies himself far more with the advancement of Christianity than with upholding the law.
db
Here's a hint: it's not religious tolerance...
From http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8728
…when asked on CNN whether principles of religious equality would lead him to support an Islamic monument similar to the two-ton commandments, Moore replied, "This nation was founded upon the laws of God, not upon the Koran." In the Christian press, Moore went even further: "This country wasn't founded upon Allah; it was founded upon the Holy Bible, and the question is whether we [Christians] are going to take a stand."
…
Fortunately, Moore is wrong when he argues that America's Constitution finds its roots in the Christian Bible, but unfortunately, that doesn't stop him from handing down opinions based on his own religious beliefs. In February of 2002, Moore ruled against a lesbian mother in a custody battle with an allegedly abusive father, calling her sexual orientation "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."
Such a non-legal ruling, combined with his refusal to comply with the lawful order to remove his monument -- to say nothing of his repeated assertion to the Christian press that God placed him in office -- show that Moore identifies himself far more with the advancement of Christianity than with upholding the law.
db
cuchulainn
Member
2dogs,
1) It promotes a particular branch of religion: Judeo-Christian.
2) I don't fear the 10C. As a Christian, I embrace them (despite many failures to comply). You are erecting a strawman argument by comparing me to the MMM
The MMM want to stop private action because they fear it.
I want to stop government action because it underminines the establishment clause -- just like a law against practicing with your guns would undermine the keep and bear clause.
Keith,
1) It promotes a particular branch of religion: Judeo-Christian.
2) I don't fear the 10C. As a Christian, I embrace them (despite many failures to comply). You are erecting a strawman argument by comparing me to the MMM
The MMM want to stop private action because they fear it.
I want to stop government action because it underminines the establishment clause -- just like a law against practicing with your guns would undermine the keep and bear clause.
Keith,
A government official promoting a religious icon as the basis of goverment action is not free exercise. It is establishment.
cuchulainn
Member
I think DaveB's last post answers that.
I submit that the good Judge's supporters just come out and explain their goals.
And that has what to do with what the 1st Amendment says?
That's as relevant to the 1st Amendment as what some neo-nazi group's goal is in owning guns is to the 2nd.
Consistency is good.
This is what I mean by fear/prejudice.
And that has what to do with what the 1st Amendment says?
That's as relevant to the 1st Amendment as what some neo-nazi group's goal is in owning guns is to the 2nd.
Consistency is good.
This is what I mean by fear/prejudice.
Keith
Member
That's hardly a "branch", more like a whole forest! But it wouldn't matter if it did "promote" a particular branch - I mean, if it was stone tablet saying "Southern Baptists Rock!" it still wouldn't matter because not a law establishing a religion!
READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT!
Keith
Keith
Member
Sounds like a bad ruling to me. Yet, it has no bearing on whether a religious symbol can be displayed in an Alabama court house.
Keith
Mike Irwin
Member
Come on, Keith. I know you're not this stupid, or at least I hope you're not.
I know you're intelligent enough to be able to grasp the difference between Judge Moore as a private citizen practicing his religious beliefs, and Judge Moore the functionary of the state who uses the power of the state to promote his personal religious beliefs.
No one is attempting to keep Judge Moore from practicing his religion as a private citizen.
But Judge Moore does not have the right, as an agent of the state, to force a particular religious belief on others. In essence that's exactly what he's attempting to do by placing a Christian monument in the courthouse.
"If you'd read the 1st Amendment you'd realize that it protects the right of any citizen to espouse a religion, government official or not.
It only prevents a government body from establishing a religion!"
Wrong.
A government official is the embodiment of the state in practice and in person. When the official becomes the proponent of a particular religious doctrine or belief while in his official duties as an official of the state, he establishes a religion as the functional basis for the state in his capacity.
"And of course, the ten commandments are from the old testament of the bible; a book that is recognized by many hundreds of religions."
Wrong.
Three religions. Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam. Subgroups of those, Methodists, Ludavicher, Shiia, etc., are all practitioners of the three religions. They are denominations or sects. They are not independent religions in their own rights.
Keith, I can only conclude that you're ignoring salient points and critical differences on purpose out of some perverse desire to be childishly pedantic.
I know you're intelligent enough to be able to grasp the difference between Judge Moore as a private citizen practicing his religious beliefs, and Judge Moore the functionary of the state who uses the power of the state to promote his personal religious beliefs.
No one is attempting to keep Judge Moore from practicing his religion as a private citizen.
But Judge Moore does not have the right, as an agent of the state, to force a particular religious belief on others. In essence that's exactly what he's attempting to do by placing a Christian monument in the courthouse.
"If you'd read the 1st Amendment you'd realize that it protects the right of any citizen to espouse a religion, government official or not.
It only prevents a government body from establishing a religion!"
Wrong.
A government official is the embodiment of the state in practice and in person. When the official becomes the proponent of a particular religious doctrine or belief while in his official duties as an official of the state, he establishes a religion as the functional basis for the state in his capacity.
"And of course, the ten commandments are from the old testament of the bible; a book that is recognized by many hundreds of religions."
Wrong.
Three religions. Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam. Subgroups of those, Methodists, Ludavicher, Shiia, etc., are all practitioners of the three religions. They are denominations or sects. They are not independent religions in their own rights.
Keith, I can only conclude that you're ignoring salient points and critical differences on purpose out of some perverse desire to be childishly pedantic.
Mike Irwin
Member
Keith,
To you I can only say this...
COMPREHEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT!
You're obviously able to read.
Your ability to comprehend and assimilate is at issue, unfortunately.
To you I can only say this...
COMPREHEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT!
You're obviously able to read.
Your ability to comprehend and assimilate is at issue, unfortunately.
Mike Irwin
Member
"This country wasn't founded upon Allah; it was founded upon the Holy Bible, and the question is whether we [Christians] are going to take a stand." Judge Moore
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." US Constitution
It's painfully clear that Judge Moore, agent of the state, is in fact attempting to establish Christianity as a state religion.
He's in violation of the Constitution and the many rulings of law as set by the Supreme Court.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." US Constitution
It's painfully clear that Judge Moore, agent of the state, is in fact attempting to establish Christianity as a state religion.
He's in violation of the Constitution and the many rulings of law as set by the Supreme Court.
- Status