US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments

[neoncowboy]

If the 10 commandments are etched and no others are allowed, I'd say that'd be totalitarian, theocracy or oligarchy depending on your opinions.

Except that our nation wasn't founded on those ideals. Those ideals aren't intricately woven into our history, culture and character as a nation. The ideals of Christianity are...or have been until recent years.

And the only group I'm seeing being told 'you can't' is Christians. The Surpeme Court isn't erasing the influence of Wiccans from the public record, but of Christians.

The more important issue at hand is just that representative government ought to be allowed to be that. I'm not trampling anyones rights by wanting my congressmen and senators to pray, to acknowledge God, to be humble before Him, to desire justice, to have faith...I just want my government to represent me...to LOOK LIKE me! I never said Hindus weren't allowed...if the people are hindu and mobilize to elect hindu officials who bring to government their uniquely hindu views, that's representative government. I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't want ti to be banned or anything 'totalitarian' like that.

 

[gc70]

We have lost any semblance of balance and tolerance regarding the "establishment" issue. People on both sides of the argument have gone to ridiculous extremes, with each feeding on the actions of the other to fuel their determination to be the victor in the argument.

 

[neoncowboy]

We have lost any semblance of balance and tolerance regarding the "establishment" issue.

No kidding.

To the same extent that we've 'lost any semblance of balance' ragarding congress' right to control interstate commerce.

Common sense and prudence has been totally suspended in our nation's courts.

 

[CentralTexas]

My God

can beat up your god!
I just wanted to say that before someone else here did...
CT

I would like to point out and you cannot dispute that the BOR isn't about what the majority wants, it's to protect the rights of the individual.
If you disagree see if you can find a junior high civics teacher to ask.
So keep saying it's a representative christian nation etc. till you are blue in the face, it doesn't make it true...
CT

 

[neoncowboy]

I'm still just confused at how allowing courthouses to display teh 10 commandments is a violation of the bill of rights.

What right is hindered by a courthouse being decorated with the 10 commandments?

The right to feel comfortable?
The right not to be confronted with the 10 commandments?
The right to a government that refuses to acknowledge God?

And anyway, the 1st amendment is about limiting congress' powers. Inscriptions on courthouses, prayer in schools, 'In God We Trust' on money, et al doesn't really have anything to do with congress...but with our national heritage and culture.

The 1st amendment doesn't read, 'national cultural practices shall not develop respecting establishment of religion...'

 

[gc70]

Neon, as today's two differing Supreme Court decisions reflect, the 10 Commandments can mean different things in different contexts.

Yes, the 10 Commandments reflect a historic legal code. The Texas case permitted the 10 Commandments to be displayed within the context of a broader display of historic documents.

Yes, the 10 Commandments also reflect a divine code and underpin Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. The Kentucky case prohibited displaying the 10 Commandments as a thinly-veiled surrogate symbol for Christian beliefs.

1A says you have the right to pursue any religious beliefs you want to, without the government trying to impose a particular brand of religion on you.

Unfortunately, the 10 Commandments have often been misused as a "code sign" for Christian beliefs. In that context, the 10 Commandments are effectively a marker that says "this is Christian territory." And that is not a very neutral position for the government to take.

 

[RevDisk]

Hey Rev, don't forget my elephant-nosed god!

Throw Thoth in as well - maybe Hermes -- it seems our judges need all the help they can get nowadays.

Oh, I didn't forget, Derek. I myself am respectful of the Thuggee, who venerate Kali. My spirituality is geared towards less... subtle deities. Kali, Samedi, etc.

An aside, the Cult of Thuggee had both Muslim and Hindu members.

Except that our nation wasn't founded on those ideals. Those ideals aren't intricately woven into our history, culture and character as a nation. The ideals of Christianity are...or have been until recent years.

And the only group I'm seeing being told 'you can't' is Christians. The Surpeme Court isn't erasing the influence of Wiccans from the public record, but of Christians.

Oh? Our nation was founded on the ideal of freedom. Not religion. The only meantion of religion was in the Declaration of Independence, nowhere in the Constitution. In the Declaration of independence, the only religious references were "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "their Creator". I see no reference to Judeo-Christian, Islamic , Hindu, or any other religions. Perhaps you are reading some version I don't have access to?

Again, this is rather similuar to an argument with a gun banner. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are VERY clear. This is not a dictatorship of the masses. This is a Constitutional Republic. Your vote cannot be used to strip away Constitutional freedoms. 51% of the voters cannot take away RKBA nor create a 'Christian nation'.

Whip out your copy of the Constitution, read it, and then please explain to me the section that says we should favor any perticular religion(s) over any other religion(s).

As for "you can't" and Christian persecution, point out to me any Wiccans that wish to have the Rede plastered in courthouses and no other religious doctrine. Point out Hindus that wish to enforce a caste system in the American legal system. Point out to me Muslims that wish to make halal the law of the land. Or for that matter, Jews wishing to make all American food kosher.

Yea, you might find one or two lunatics if you search really hard. The vast overwhelming numbers just wish to have their religion respected and treated as equal to any other. I do see the removal of crosses and such from public view as kinda stupid.

But I also see the denial of equal treatment of all religions as being an un-Constititional crime. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution with my life. Are you willing to die to protect religions not your own, and willing to respect other religions that you disagree with?

If so, take a long look at the Constitution and decide if you really respect that document. The Constitution promotes freedom, not repression.

What right is hindered by a courthouse being decorated with the 10 commandments?

The right to feel comfortable?
The right not to be confronted with the 10 commandments?
The right to a government that refuses to acknowledge God?

If you stop me on the way to the market and wave a copy of the 10 commandments in my face, I'll smile and wish you a good day. If the government does the same, I smile and mentally inventory weapons nearby. Same for any religious doctrine. I don't care if the government wants to promote Judism, Christianity, Hindu, Islam or Satanism. All or none. It's not nothing to do with "feeling comfortable" and all to do with the Constitution.

The government has a right to acknowledge what deity or deities it wishes to. Favoring a deity over all other deities is when I get annoyed. You seem to be missing this basic principle.

 

[Glock Glockler]

What I would like to know is why if a body of govt likes a bit of writing that happens to be what some people consider holy then it's a de facto endorsement of that religion?

If a govt had taken a great quote about law or justice from an ancient Greek parable and used that for a decoration in a public building does that mean they are advocating Hellenic paganism?

This absurd dichotomy that we have to have Wiccan and Hindu quotes in courts if we allow the 10 commandments is essentially content discrimination based on religous association. Does Vishnu have any really good and witty quotes that would be relevant in a court atmosphere, and if so have you been specifically denied having that verse in a govt building after you petitioned for it's inclusion?

There is no discrimination if you have not petitioned and been denied on it's religous association, so there is no basis for claiming that you have been denied equal protection. The 10 commandments are basically rules for people to play nice in the sandbox, and a court is where people end up when they don't play nice in that sandbox, rather ironic isn't it?

 

[CentralTexas]

Please stop the "In god we trust"

on the money argument! I carry a dollar bill that doesn't say "In god we trust", it's from the 1930's before it was added to the currency, what does that prove???? We weren't a christian nation then?????. It was a 1950's reaction to godless commies that got it added to the money. Politics, pure an simple.
It proves NOTHING! Nada! Zip!
It's right up there with I can prove America is a christian nation because:
Bookstores have books with the "GOD" word it them!
thousands of cars have the little christian fish symbol on them
Micheal Jackson believes in Jesus (juice anyway)
AAARGH!
CT

 

[beerslurpy]

I'm totally digging your Ganesh dude. That's what we're replacing the 10 commands with, right? Far out. </stoner>

Do not give my god a peanut </apu>

 

[romulus]

Almighty God, our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization and to set free a suffering humanity.

That was Franklin Delano...who here thinks he was talking about Islam or Wicca? Or some sort of libertarian ideal...what overt willful ignorance.

 

[Taurus 66]

Ruth Bador Ginsburg along with her four henchmen will ALWAYS rule in favor of anything "anti-family", "anti-military", "anti-police", "anti-amendments & American freedom". Has anyone noticed so far the "5-4" vote on every issue? It's never 6-3?? or 7-2?? What?? It's a setup of the most basic kind in the US Supreme Court! It's a current socialist structure designed to carry out their prime directive, and that is to destroy America from within. Impeachment is a valid option, however, these heads are so drunk (and corrupt) with power, it would require actual physical removal from the bench.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Yesterday's decision on P2P software was 9-0. It happens.

 

[bogie]

What gets me is that a lot of folks have completely ignored the more important decision, on private property rights, in favor of going apebleep over this essentially metaphysical cluster....

You can still have the 10 commandments in your church. Problem is, the shopping mall folks want your church...

 

[dev_null]

RevDisk, when I see a vever for Legba and am sworn in on a copy of The Book of the Law, I'll know we've moved on.

 

[TheEgg]

My issue with this decision is not about the result but the "process".

It is how this decision, along with many, many more coming from the court in the last 20+ years shows the fundamental abandonment by our S.C. of any kind of coherent judicial philosophy.

Instead, they have become a super-legislature, a body answerable to no one in which the personal opinions of the judges hold sway, and they no longer give due deference to the Constitution, the Legislature, or precedent. Basically, anything they like gets upheld, and anything they don't like gets tossed.

This results in legal and constitutional chaos. The way they did this decision is going to result in MORE lawsuits, not less. They tried to split a legal hair and have it both ways -- that fails far more often than it succeeds.

In reality, the S.C. is now ruling our country by fiat, having abandoned all restraint and the historic modesty of their role envisioned by the founders.

So don't get bogged down in your zeal for religion, or your contempt for it. All of us are equally damaged by rulings such as this and the others coming out of the court.

 

[roo_ster]

What Does the US Constitution Say About It?

Amendment I
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.

Article VI, Paragraph Three
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

For folks who claim to read, know, and respect the US Constitution as written, I see an awful lot of horse manure being thrown about. Also, the ignorance of the history and circumstances of the time is impressive and Brady-esque.

See, the pertinent part of Amendment I is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This says nothing about a "wall of separation," neutrality, irreligion, hostility to religion, mandatory endorsement of religion, or an even hand with regard to religions. It simply states that Congress will not pass a law making any religion the national religion (as they had in many european countries at the time) and that the US Congress can't tell you what to worship. Also, you don't have to be a particular religion to hold an office at the federal level.

However, this allows for the individual States to do so, as several did at the time of ratification of the US Constitution.

So, if the state of Kentucky wants to wallpaper its courtroom with copies of the Ten Commandments, require holders of state offices to be deacons in the Catholic Church, and make Catholicism the Kentucky State Religion; that is the business of the State of Kentucky, the Kentucky Constitution, Kentucky's voters, and their elected representatives. The SCOTUS has no leg to stand on to make any ruling becasue the US Constitution has not granted fed.gov the authority to act in such a case.

Also, Amendment I precludes an establishment of religion but does not preclude other legislation which has an effect on or acknowledges religion. Examples close to home are religious establishments' tax exemptions and immunizations of poor children in private religious schools. Examples more contemporaneous to the founding fathers have been given.

If we want fed.gov to have the power to act in such cases, we have an amendment process. This is the same answer I would give to the anti-gunners who don't like what Amendment II says.

*********

In the recent SCOTUS cases, I had hoped that both Kentucky and Texas would come out on top, not because I want the Ten Commandments plastered on the walls of courthouses and in their restrooms above the urinals, but because I wanted to be pleasantly surprised that the SCOTUS would stay within the bounds of the US Constitution.

With Raich, Kelso, and now the Kentucky ruling, this has been a bad year for those who take the US Constitution at its word.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I really don't see what problem people have with "Don't commit murder" "Don't commit perjury" "Don't steal", etc. Sounds pretty secular to me, unless of course, you believe God gave those commandments to Moses and that somehow upsets you.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

I really don't see what problem people have with "Don't commit murder" "Don't commit perjury" "Don't steal", etc. Sounds pretty secular to me, unless of course, you believe God gave those commandments to Moses and that somehow upsets you.

Please explain how "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is secular.

 

[Rebar]

I have to say I'm suprised by some folks vitriolic hatred of their own culture.

The 10 commandments (from the Judaic, not Christian tradition), are the very foundation of Western law, and the Judeo/Christian, Greco/Roman traditions are the foundation of Western Civilization. It is entirely appropriate to have the commandments on the courthouse, on the outside at least, as an acknowledgment of the roots of our law. In the same way most courthouses and other government buildings have Greco/Roman columns on the outside, to acknowledge those very important roots.

Islam, Hinduism, Wiccan, etc., cannot make the same claim, in fact many like Islam are profoundly anti-Western. What's next, you're going to demand Islamic minarets added, or a stonhedge-type stone ring, if Greek style columns are on a building, to be "fair" to those cultures? Rediculous. Jettisoning our Western Culture and heritage is not "fair", it's cultural suicide.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Please explain how "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is secular.

That is an excellent point. However, I believe that this has been secularized as "There is true right and wrong. Do not engage in moral relativism." That is, don't try to rationalize you bad deeds by saying that "It's not my fault because . . ." or "In a parallel dimension . . ." or "If it feels good, do it."

In other words: You are not above the law.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Rebar is exactly right. We are, and have been, committing cultural suicide. That is the root of the problem. And CC, I'm trying to understand (honestly) what your particular objection to the 10 commandments is. Do you object to their display because you think God actually handed them to Moses (as law for the Jews), or because some religious people claim them as tenets? Do you object to a public profession of faith? Do you fear that others faith will be imposed on you by force? Please explain how you are threatened by the display of something as benign as the 10 commandments in a public place.

 

[Mr. James]

Nicely struck, jfruser and Rebar.

The Constitution is supposed to limit the powers delegated to the federal government. Individual states did have official state religions at the time of the Constitution's drafting - and that was all according to Hoyle. Don't like the state religion? Move.

The laws of many states were specifically, intentionally anti-Catholic. The Republic survived, and the Catholics came anyway... Now there are mosques in the least likely of places. So it goes.

Raich, Kelo and now this case show the Supremes are completely untethered from any foundation in law.

 

[dev_null]

I have no problem with the decalog being publicly displayed on private grounds. I do object to tax monies being spent on creating, displaying and maintaining them, or to having them publicly displayed on edifices of the secular government. I agree with the concept of their inclusion in a historical display that also shows other sources of our modern rule of law.

As to their cultural significance, I remind you that a court is a hall of law, not culture. If you wish to have them included as part of a museum display, that's another story -- provided other sources and influences are included. Otherwise, this is all just a smokescreen for pushing your version of the One True Religion (tm) on everyone.

I still maintain that there is widespread acceptance of the ruling and the thought behind it among a great cultural and religious diversity, but that the opponents are exclusively, or at least overwhelmingly, Protestant Christians. This fact also drives home the impression that this is one particular group attempting to advance their own religious agenda.

I also maintain that this has nothing to do with guns.

Frankly, if you want a country that resembles a Christian Taliban, go found your own.

hecetu aloh

- 0 -

 

[R.H. Lee]

As to their cultural significance, I remind you that a court is a hall of law, not culture.

dev null, I have no objection to your objection. However, may I remind you that the law and the culture are inextricably entwined, as the adjudication of law is only a reflection of the culture.

Also, the phrase 'Christian Taliban' is hyperbole is it not? Or are you really in fear of some kind of Inquisition here, in this country?