Ten Commandments monument

[up2date]

Remember the monument story from the last month or two? Well, supporters have engaged in a 5 state tour in support of putting the monument back in the Alabama appellate court building.

Does the monument belong there?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/10/05/dc.ten.commandments/index.html

[JD3]

No.

That said, both sides could easily settle this. As long as other such artifacts are also placed in the building, then no one can argue that the state is favoring one religion over the other. Someone is trying to push a point, and it should not be done in this fasion.

If people can resolve something without this kind of frenzy, they should.

[america]

I think it belongs there.

[dreamin penguin]

Alright, my opinion on this topic is going to sound a little odd, because well, it is. I consider myself to be a Christian, I don't attend church regularly, but a Christian nonetheless. However, I don't necissarily think that the commandments belong there. Shocking? Well, think about it this way. If the government isn't supposed to be biased towards any religion we'd have to include documents or monuments from other religions. How would you like to walk into a building and see a picture of a burning cross from the KKK? It's really the same type of idea. It's all a matter of freedom of religion. As much as I think it would be great to have the Ten Commandments posted in buildings, I don't think it would be fair to others with their own opinions.

[NetxMan]

To bad it isn't the Supreme Court's Place to tell Alabama what to do. Unless it is however listed in the constitution. And this however isn't. The Supreme Court has been overstepping its bounds lately, and I am kinda getting tired of it.

[NetxMan]

Originally posted by dreamin penguin
Alright, my opinion on this topic is going to sound a little odd, because well, it is. I consider myself to be a Christian, I don't attend church regularly, but a Christian nonetheless. However, I don't necissarily think that the commandments belong there. Shocking? Well, think about it this way. If the government isn't supposed to be biased towards any religion we'd have to include documents or monuments from other religions. How would you like to walk into a building and see a picture of a burning cross from the KKK? It's really the same type of idea. It's all a matter of freedom of religion. As much as I think it would be great to have the Ten Commandments posted in buildings, I don't think it would be fair to others with their own opinions.

Where does it say the government isn't supposed to be biased towards religions? That is a politically correct train of thought.

The KKK isn't a religion.

Why do we have to be fair to everyone? Is it fair to let Fanatic muslimis blow people up?

[up2date]

Originally posted by NetxMan
Why do we have to be fair to everyone? Is it fair to let Fanatic muslimis blow people up? I'm not quite sure how this is relevant to whether the 10 commandments monument should stay.

The constitution does in fact have something to say about religion. It's in the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;We can dissect those words as much as we want, but it has been interpreted this way since virtually the beginning.

Then there's also the way the monument got there in the first place. Justice Moore brought it in under the cover of darkness. It was installed at midnight without the knowledge of the state.

[america]

Some good points, the fanatic muslim remark was an exception, I agree it does not seem relevant, but in a long stretch it is.
The Ten Commandments have been is some of our court houses over 200 yrs. It seems to be people just feel the time is ripe to have the support of the people now where in the past they probably thought they better not try it.
In this case if he brought them in, in the dead of the night, that may be a bit sneaky. However, has it come down to this? We have to sneak around in the dead of the night to place the Ten Commandments? I don't think that was the strongest issue due to the fact that in other cases, the documents were carved by local stonecutters and not only removed but destroyed. That is part of some of our heritage. While others seem entitled to have a touch of heritage, generational Americans are not.
The muslim remark is interesting because I heard Rev. Falwell say last week on television that Muslims some how had a place in the outlawing Ten Commandments. That is not true and seems to be a going implication.
As for others placing their religious beliefs in the court houses, if that is what they want to do, let them do it, but the KKK is not a religion.
The biggest problem for me is that SOME religions are following their beliefs by taking out the Ten Commandments, they are to go into the lands and destroy their Gods. How convenient we have come to a place in time that is following their religion.
I am not shocked that Christians would not object to removing the Ten Commandments, Christians seem to take it all on the chin but I think some are waking up and saying "okay that's it."
Notice too, it isn't always God they are objecting to, it is JESUS.
We still have in God we trust.

[NetxMan]

Originally posted by up2date
I'm not quite sure how this is relevant to whether the 10 commandments monument should stay.

The constitution does in fact have something to say about religion. It's in the first amendment.
We can dissect those words as much as we want, but it has been interpreted this way since virtually the beginning.

Then there's also the way the monument got there in the first place. Justice Moore brought it in under the cover of darkness. It was installed at midnight without the knowledge of the state.

Yes please do dissect that for me. CONGRESS! Not Alabama,

Shall make no laws! laws? Have they ever?,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Again, Have they ever?

It really doesn't take an idiot to understand that phrase. And you can twist and turn it however you want. But it clearly says one thing. That our government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship. If you take a look at the history of the first amendment you would understand it a little more. But, to shorten it, Our Founding Fathers, didn't want the same thing that happened in England, a state church. T

Though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion.

[up2date]

I've researched this a bit on several occasions over the years, and if you do you will find precious little evidence exists to demonstrate the intent of the Founding Fathers. There was a major, well funded study to uncover their intent, and it turned up very little. So neither you nor I can definitively say what they intended.

I can say, however, that it has been interpreted, without any twisting from me, from the very start to something similar to the "separation of church and state" doctrine we are familiar with today. You are right, the main goal is often accepted to be the prevention of a national religion. Any government endorsement of one religion over another, whether real or implied, can be interpreted as an overstepping of the first amendment. By ordering the monument removed, Justice Moore's first amendment rights were not violated. Rather, other's rights were protected.

[NetxMan]

No, but his right to up hold the law of Alabama was.

And, further more, whose rights were not protected?

[up2date]

Alabama laws do not supersede those of the constitution. Plus, it was the Alabama State Court of the Judiciary who suspended more, not a federal court.

As for who's rights were not protected, I will paraphrase Winston Churchill. Placing that monument on a state court property was a "slippery slope" towards "endorsing" a religion.

[NetxMan]

You are right , they are seperate. That's, why we have state constitutions.

Guess what "slippery slope" doesn't mean "does."

[JD3]

mean don't either. It can be interpreted that this means the state supports this religion if it is the only artifact displayed. And those in favor of displaying this do want christianty favored. I think that is true. Reasonable people could have worked out a comprimise, so I must conclude this is being argued by unreasonable people.

[lawman]

NetxMan seems to be arguing from a rather discredited interpretation of contitutional doctrine, with a strong dollop of "states' rights" thrown in via the allegation of federal overstepping. Up2date sticks closer to the facts, pointing out that the decision in Alabama was, in fact, an Alabama decision.

Still, that's no reason not to tackle the underlying issues, just in case someone may be buying what NetxMan is selling. For the record, then...

Although "intent of the founders" is hardly a dispositive guide to constitutional interpretation (we have over 200 years of precedent for that), the whole "wall of separation between church and state" concept does in fact trace directly back to Thomas Jefferson. It's in no way some modern-day distortion... in fact, what actually appear more like modern-day distortions are all the overt government endorsements of religion (on our money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.) that date to the last two or three generations.

Furthermore, let there be no doubt that the state of Alabama (along with the other 49) is bound by the Bill of Rights as surely as is the U.S. Congress. The 14th Amendment extended it to the states, pursuant to a longstanding line of cases that have faced no credible challenge.

Given that, neither Congress nor Alabama can violate the First Amendment. As noted, that amendment has two clauses, which counterbalance each other. The establishment clause does prohibit forming any State Church, yes, but it also prohibits any other state action which privileges or endorses one set of beliefs over others. The free exercise clause prohibits the state from interfering with private exercise of any belief system (provided that exercise violates no other belief-neutral laws).

Thus, using state funds and state property to install, display, and maintain an explicitly religious document, the Ten Commandments (which has almost nothing to do with contemporary law, BTW; at least seven of the commandments manifestly don't apply in the U.S.) would put the state not merely on a "slippery slope" but in direct violation of the establishment clause.

For that matter, even a more diverse display of "other" religious documents wouldn't pass muster (although it would certainly annoy the zealous Christians who JD3 rightly notes are behind this tempest-in-a teapot), inasmuch as it would still indicate state endorsement of religious belief (in general) over nonbelief. NetxMan's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, freedom of religion DOES (indeed MUST) include freedom *from* religion for those who so choose.

[JD3]

Just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading that.

[ScummyD]

Of what religion is the Ten Commandments monument? And it is not a law so what is the problem? I am admitedly a little ignorant here, and for the record am in no way religious. But I don't see the problem with the monument.
We place our hand on the bible in court beneath the very same ten statements don't we?

[lawman]

Originally posted by scummyd
Of what religion is the Ten Commandments monument? And it is not a law so what is the problem? I am admitedly a little ignorant here, and for the record am in no way religious. But I don't see the problem with the monument.
We place our hand on the bible in court beneath the very same ten statements don't we?

It's Christian (with possibly room to include Judaism, depending on which version of the Commandments is used). That obviously excludes everyone with beliefs distinct from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Note also that consitutional prohibitions on governmental activity aren't limited strictly to the passing of explicit laws; a wide range of other "state actions" are also covered. (By analogy, for instance, that's worth keeping in mind the next time some cop hassles you for no good reason; he didn't have to pass a law to do it, but he's acting in the name of the state nevertheless, and it's just not allowed.)

As for oaths on the Bible in court... it's well established in case law that a religious (never mind Biblical!) oath cannot be required; a non-religious affirmation of truthful testimony is just as valid.

BTW, JD3, thanks for the kind words. :)

[MrZero]

I must agree with JD3, lawman's post was a good read. It is refreshing to see such concisely thought out posts. I have a strange feeling I am going to enjoy reading more of his posts.

Now back to our scheduled discussion....

[gopman]

The constitutional problem with removing the ten commandments monument is that it passes the lemmon test for separation of church and state. It can easily be considered to have historical value for its context.

[lawman]

The test established in Lemmon v. Kurtzman (1971) for determining a first amendment infringement asks :

* does the action has a secular purpose?
* does its primary effect neither advance nor inhibit religion?
* does it create excessive entanglements between government and religion?

To GOPman: please explain to me how, in your mind, displaying a monument to one particular set of religious doctrines in a public courthouse -- supposedly a bastion of unbiased public justice -- passes even one point of this test? For bonus points, explain what "historical value" you claim it has.

[JD3]

Are you my long lost twin? I thought only I could spout sarcasim like that.:rofl: :rofl:

[gopman]

The ten commandments are one of the world's first set of laws. They have influenced lawmaking and jurisprudence for thousands of years. If that's doesn't have historical value, then why teach any history classes. Let's only teach current events.
There is no excessive entanglement- the judges don't refer to it when making their decisions.
Its historical value qualifies its secular purpose. We study the history of economic thought, why not legal?
It doesn't advance any religion because it is not used as a means of judgement. It is merely there for its historical and artistic value. It also doesn't prevent anyone from practicing their own religion.

[lawman]

Originally posted by gopman
The ten commandments are one of the world's first set of laws. They have influenced lawmaking and jurisprudence for thousands of years. If that's doesn't have historical value, then why teach any history classes.
Actually, the TC came along rather late in the game, historically speaking. They almost certainly were set in writing no earlier than c. the 7th century BCE, alongside the rest of the book of Exodus. The Code of Hammurabi preceded that by over 1,000 years, and was arguably more influential on later law codes (including the Judaic ones)... while Greek and (esp.) Roman law were certainly more influential through the Middle Ages and on the development of modern nation-states.

If the TC were displayed in their proper place as part of an historical display of documents including the above, as well as other essentials such as the Magna Carta, the Constitution, etc., then they would be in a context that plausibly had secular relevance. But that's not what was done, nor what anyone has proposed, and obviously isn't what the evangelical Christians behind this controversy had in mind.

There is no excessive entanglement- the judges don't refer to it when making their decisions.
Hopefully true, but that's not the relevant legal standard. The entanglement comes with the use of public money and space to maintain the display, as I noted above, and which you haven't addressed.

It doesn't advance any religion because it is not used as a means of judgement.
Again, not the relevant standard. The advancement of religion comes with the implicit message that in that courthouse, religious doctrines (indeed, these specific religious doctrines) are of some special value to the local authorities, and the corresponding marginalization of any visitors (defendants, claimants, whatever) who don't subscribe to those doctrines. The notion that some supernatural doctrine has precedence over U.S. law has no place in a U.S. courtroom.

[NetxMan]

Again, not the relevant standard. The advancement of religion comes with the implicit message that in that courthouse, religious doctrines (indeed, these specific religious doctrines) are of some special value to the local authorities, and the corresponding marginalization of any visitors (defendants, claimants, whatever) who don't subscribe to those doctrines. The notion that some supernatural doctrine has precedence over U.S. law has no place in a U.S. courtroom.

I think I need to see a doctor, I actually agree with lawman for once.