The Supreme Court heard arguments last week as to whether a public displacy of the 10 commandments is constitutional:



The article describes the specific facts of the two cases:




Another good link describing what transpired at oral argument:

http://www.nysun.com/article/9989

Question for Debate:

Is the display of the 10 commandments under the facts described above a violation of the establishment clause?

From the First Amendment



It seems to me there is an internal contradiction here if one isn't careful. Congress cannot establish a state religion for the USA, so it cannot obviously favour one over another. Yet at the same time it cannot stop anyone from exercising their right to exercise their own religion, including (presumably) the officers of the State itself.

The easiest way I can see around this is to either allow all religions equal access - which is hard in a country where the vast majority is Christian - or prohibit all mention of religion, favourable or not, when any public servant is "on the job".

Neither is very satisfactory.

In the two examples given, I'd say the framed print is tenuous at best. The 10 C's are an inspiration to Anglo-Saxon law, just like Magna Carta or the other examples, so if it wasn't given any more prominence than the others then I'd say it was Constitutional.

On the other hand, the Texas example was a fair judgement - a ruddy great stone quote of the 10 C's on display on court property (not just any old public building, such as a library, but a court) seems to me to be an attempt to say that the court thinks these things are the only sources of the ideas behind the law that are worth carving in stone and proclaiming. It isn't out-and-out establishment, but only because it doesn't explicitly exclude Judaism and Islam, all of which also revere the 10 C's.

In English idiom, the Kentuckians were onside, but the Texans were taking the Mickey.

Is the display of the 10 commandments under the facts described above a violation of the establishment clause?

It is my opinion that it does violate the establishment clause. Moreover, the 10 Cs (I like that Julian) monument is out of place. It is the only religious monument of the 16 on the grounds of the Texas state house. Maybe someone could make a giant burlap bag we could drape over the monument until the case is decided. Then if the court decides it is inappropriate, we (Texans) can disassembled it, commandment by commandment, and reassembled it in a private museum.



Link to All 16 Monuments

Stuff like this never ceases to amaze me. If someone wants to read the 10 Cs there are ample sources of the Bible available in all sorts of translations. Some organizations even give Bibles away if someone wants one badly enough. It isn't necessary for tourists to read it on the lawn when visiting the seat of Texas government.

Here is an excerpted portion of the statement of facts submitted by the State of Texas in its brief to the Supreme Court. It provides additional interesting details:



A few points:

(1) First, the monument is now part of a protected historic site-- designated as a National Historic Landmark. Clearly it has historical value.

(2) The monument is only visible to persons approaching the capital from the least used, west entrance.

(3) The monument was created (in part) as part of a marketing ploy by Cecil B. DeMille.

(4) The monument was installed a half a century ago.

Why on earth is it so important that this monument be removed? Now, after a half a century, the monument needs to be removed because it violates the establishment clause? How is this possible? What has changed in the past 50 years-- to make this such a pressing issue that some suggest it should be covered with a burlap bag? Has our country gone insane?

Moreover, the monument is one of our nation's rare and precious historic landmarks. Aside from the silliness of having to move it, many are opposed to moving it because it will compromise its historic roots.

I just don't get it. I truly believe there is a growing hostility toward religion in this country. And I see a tendency by the courts these days to pander to the hypersensitivities of some intolerant individuals.

Is the display of the 10 commandments under the facts described above a violation of the establishment clause?

Well, I don’t think the display of the 10C’s establishes any religion regardless if the Hebrew translation is supporting one or the other main religions. The display of a stone or metal doesn’t “establish” anything, it is just an object to be viewed. Should the government own the items and under what circumstances is a very vague question since there are hundreds of thousands of such religious “signatures” all across America being protected by historic site material.

I watched the opposing experts on CSPAN debate the subject earlier in the week and there are so many variables I think the court will order a rambling order that it will be so unclear nothing will change. There are conflicting laws on preservation of historic monuments and so many more variables that the justices may have a brain drain searching for words to describe what is and what is not allowed.

I think the entire court case is such a waste of time since America is a Christian nation and no one forces anyone to view the “object” and anyone who objects to the object may simply glance the other way. The SC justices know if they blanket deny the display the 10 C’s the ACLU or other complainant will be litigating the removal of crosses from Arlington National Cemetery.

I don’t think America is ready to pull burlap bags over the crosses on Arlington National Cemetery and I think any interpretation considered liberal enough to allow such a movement will see an end to liberal thinking SC justices for a very long time.

The Texas Capitol building is a National Historical Landmark without assistance from the 10C monument.



http://gotexas.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsit...%2Fcapevent.htm



I don’t see what difference it makes whether the momument is at the most used or least used entrance. This is completely irrelevant.



The monument was placed on the grounds in 1961, not in 1956 when DeMille’s film premiered. Unless part of the movie was shot on the Texas capitol grounds, and it wasn't, this too is irrelevant.



You are fudging a bit here. It was added to the 119-year-old capitol grounds 44 years ago.

Is the display of the 10 commandments under the facts described above a violation of the establishment clause? The 10 commandments are completely religious and have no place in any government building. Look at the first one, , having a public monument that says people should only believe in the Judeo-christian God is insane. It may be popular to believe in God but respecting what's a popular tradition is much less important than respecting individuals wish not to have a religious document displayed in their courthouse. Yeah, I'm not being forced to read "Keep the sabbath holy", but it's a government acknowledgement of a certain religious point of view. As a citizen I don't want my government to promulgate a religious point of view that many people don't have.

I also don't understand what historical significance the ten commandments have in our legal system. We only kept 2 out of 10, and the two we kept, no murdering and no stealing, are pretty obvious. It's not like Shintoism allows murder and stealing. There's no getting away from the fact that the ten commandments is a religious document. As such, making it into a monument is an establishment of religion that puts Judeo-Christian faith above others.

I think that's irrelevant. I'm an American, I'm not christian. My first amendment rights aren't nullified by my minority status.

What does this have to do with the Constitution?



What does this have to do with the Constitution?



What does this have to do with the Constitution?



What does this have to do with the Constitution?



There might be persuasive Constitutional arguments to support either side on this issue; all you are doing here is trying to appeal to an iffy tradition, and to emotion. Goodness sakes, on the one hand the right crows that Bush won the election because of "moral values." On the other, somehow everyone's attacking religion. Isn't it possible that the court and the people are finally doing the right thing? Slavery shouldn't have needed a Constitutional amendment; the first ten amendments contained enough that the court should have outlawed slavery at the birth of the republic. I think it's important for us to remember (I was just mentioning this in another thread today) that it has been (and still is) the effort of people working together, pressuring the government, that has seen the civil protections of the Bill of Rights begin to come to fruition. When we (civil libertarians) fought against Jim Crow laws, it was a valiant and righteous fight. We fought because the way minorities were treated was an embarrassment to the Bill of Rights. Now, if we fight to remove religious expression in the courtroom, we are somehow hostile toward religion? The idea is itself ridiculous (no disrespect to you intended), because there are countless members of the clergy, and countless church-goers, who are involved in this issue.

I used to live in Charlottesville, Virginia. The county courthouse used to allow a creche put up on its lawn every Christmas. Eventually, this was challenged. Of course, as you might expect, the ACLU was involved - but the case was brought by (and I know this sounds like the start of a joke) two ministers and a rabbi. Their point was, if the courthouse lawn is a public forum, then the state must allow any and all first amendment expression there: burning crosses, Satanic shrines, whatever. These clergymen have my utmost respect. They were able to see beyond their emotional investment in religion, to the wider context.

Why should opposition to the 10Cs in public buildings be an attack on religion? It patently isn't.



What if the courthouse put up a statue of two people having sex? Very graphically depicted? Would it not be establishing obscenity? Would it just be an "object to be viewed?" An extreme example, to be sure. But germane. In a museum, it is likely that visitors are able to separate their opinions about the museum, from the content of the exhibits. But in a courthouse, that relationship is not established. If you went to Podunk, Idaho, and upon entering the courthouse, you saw a statue of Adolph Hitler, with some choice quote about the "final solution," what would you think of the courthouse? Would you conclude it was merely an "object to be viewed?"

Please understand, I am not trying to compare the ten commandments to sexual statues or Hitler. I am using extreme examples to show that you cannot divest the state from those displays very easily. My guess is it's because you want to divest them, because you approve of the commandments being there. But, like the clergy I spoke of earlier, can't we divest ourselves from whether or not we personally like the commandments, and focus on jurisprudence and reason?

I can’t see the display of the 10 C’s establishes or takes away anything. It is merely one of the origins of common law our nation was founded. Common law origin is pre Jesus and post Jesus and America adopted common law verses secular law. Common law is the same law that allowed the burning of witches in Salem so it was, in part adopted based on Christian moral beliefs and therefore should be displayed equally to the absence of a monument for secular neutral law. Admit it a religion is not established with the display, the display is just one of many forms most of our laws were formed on in our Christian nation.

Secular neutral law would not allow for a Christian moral judgment on gays for example such as the “don’t ask – don’t tell” military policy. Likewise, the blue laws across the south forbidding businesses to be open on Sunday morning in conflict with Christian beliefs must be based on the moral judgment of Christians making common laws. Driving northeast from Dallas you can drive three hours and not be able to purchase or publicly be viewed drinking alcohol. In some counties you can be fined and even be imprisoned for drinking a beer in public view on your own property. I must conclude these are Christian moral based laws as decided by the majority within a democracy under common law.

Common law doesn’t violate your 1st amendment rights nor does it violate Christian’s rights to make laws to enforce Christian values that you must obey!

For you to conclude the 10C’s violate your 1st amendment rights then I would have to conclude the crosses on Arlington National Cemetery also violate your 1st amendment rights? Are you willing to go there with your limits of rights? I tend to think you and many others will wallow in murky dissolutions of De Nile until you are once again just ignored as being preposterous.

What's really quit funny about this situation is that the Supreme Court will be saying a prayer before they hear every single piece of testimony in the case. They will be sitting in a chamber that has pictures of all the famous lawgivers of history...including Moses holding the 10 commandments.

Anyone following the case...one could obviously see the court does not want to make a decision on this and will probably just let it be. Even two of the more liberal judges seem to be going on the side of leaving it alone.

Hear is the thing. If you are going to court...and the Ten Commandments happens to go into your field of vision. All you have to do is move your head 10 degrees in any direction and problem solved. Unless of course your fixation on the ten commandments is so great that you need medical attention.

People are saying we have to live in a country where some people can preach about communism, anarchy, white supremacy, and hate. Where people can do things like hang a dummy of a dead soldier from their house because it is freedom of expression. But God forbid (pun intended) if someone displays the 10 commandments or mentions God in a public school. How is a religious belief different than a philosophical or ideological belief? How come it is not protected in the same manner?

Irrelevant. We actually do NOT get white supremacy (or what have you) advocated in school.

You are just as free to preach religion as you are to preach white supremacy - actually, you are much more free to preach religion than communism, anarchy, white supremacy or hate. But, just as white supremacy has no place in the classroom or the courthouse, neither do religious artifacts or symbols. Indeed, you are altogether wrong. Religious belief is enormously well protected in this country. Churches don't even have to pay taxes. Why is it when civil libertarians want to uphold the Bill of Rights and take away those things which symbolize the state endorsing a particular religious view, they are suddenly "attacking religion?" That just makes no sense.

It's actually funny - there are nations where Christians are a small minority, where secularizing the state would be seen as a step forward in civil rights; places where Christians are oppressed or not allowed to worship openly. Here, where Christians seem to be the majority, suddenly the same movement becomes an affront to religion.

It is indeed debateable where the line should be drawn as far as displays of a religious nature in a government building, are concerned. A display of the 10 Commandments included with displays of other documents of our legal lineage (Magna Carta, Constitution etc.) is constitutional in my opinion. For government to build a building which is actually a church, with the 10 C's, biblical passages of all kinds, holy water urns, bibles available to all, etc., would not be constitutional IMHO. So the line is drawn somewhere between these two extremes. But there's a lot of room between them, of course.

It's worthwhile to note, of course, that the Framers never intended the ban on govt endorsing a religion, to have the impact it does today, even with a reasonably-drawn line as I have described above. Not because keeping excessive religious reference out of government is so hard - it isn't. But because today the Federal govt reaches into far more aspects of our lives than ever before - so a ban on religious excess has far greater impact, in turn, than the Framers ever intended.

In another thread I pointed out that the 1st amendment ban affects Congress only - that is, the Federal government, not the states, counties, or cities. When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted, several states had official state religions at the time (Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut I think, and possibly others). And the 1st amendment was explicitly designed not to affect them - it bans only the Fed govt from making a law respecting or prohibiting etc. The states are free to do all the respecting they liked.

Nowadays there is a movement to "incorporate" such passages in the Bill of Rights, to bind state governments as well as the Fed. I believe this "one size fits all" approach is badly mistaken. It is purportedly based on the wording of the 14th amendment - if this is justified, then the 14th destroys many aspects of the BOR as well as supplying some of the benefits it does.

But, getting back to the subject, the people who have wanted to eliminate religion from American life have received an unexpected windfall from the modern-liberal trend toward ever-expanding Federal government and its increasing role in every aspect of our lives. Religion was welcome in schools for generations... as long as they were supported only by state and lower governments. Once the Fed started supplying funds, they became "Federal" institutions, sort of... enough that suddenly we had to get religion out of them. Every part of our lives that the Fed gets involved in, suddenly has to get rid of any religious aspects, if present trends continue.

I strongly suggest that these trends NOT be allowed to continue. In fact, a rollback would be most welcome, if for no other reason than religion would be allowed the freedom envisioned by our Founders, rather than the active repression being implemented by our current anti-religious zealots.

Of course, there are many more3 excellent reasons to roll back the scope and influence of the Federal government. But religion is a good starter.

Yawn. Here we go again. A spitting match between the self-appointed Defenders of the Faith who fear every aspect of religion will be purged from American life and the Sinister Secular Humanists whom proclaim their belief in a Supreme Being but just don't want to be reminded of Him before they go into a courtroom.

A pox on both your houses. Why don't you just share a tuna fish sandwich and work your differences out.

I suspect the Supreme Court is going to narrowly rule in this case and neither side is going to be too happy with the result I share the sentiments of Charles C. Haynes, a scholar at the First Amendment Center:

Whatever the outcome at the Supreme Court, nobody will be a “winner.”

The removers — those who want to scrub all references to religion from public property — won’t be satisfied, even if the Court strikes down both displays. Why? Because the reasoning used by the Court will be very fact-specific, leaving plenty of room for the Ten Commandments to be included in future government-sponsored displays that can be viewed as secular in purpose and message.

And the restorers — those who advocate a return to a “Christian America” — won’t be satisfied, even if the Court upholds both displays. Why? Because, again, the majority of justices won’t allow a government-sponsored Ten Commandments display — solo, without any diluting context — that sends a message endorsing religion.

Of course, the biggest losers will be the rest of us — the majority of Americans who are weary of these endless conflicts and lawsuits. To our despair, the removers will continue to find monuments in other public places that they want removed. And the restorers won’t stop inventing ways to use government to promote their religious vision of the nation.

Most of us, I suspect, don’t want the state to promote religion. But neither do we want to strip all references to religion from public property. Sadly, we can’t control what the litigious few are determined to do.

If the Ten Commandments weren’t already etched in stone, I would be tempted to appeal to a Higher Power for an 11th: Thou shalt not use the Word of the Lord thy God to advance thine own agenda.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=14916

I love how when there's a question about how religion should be treated, Christianity always gets the excuse. People are always willing to let it be the exception to the rule. I'd assume this is because the people who are willing to allow this are Christian, which makes sense.



Why should I have to turn my head? Why do some people get special treatment when it comes to this?



There's a growing hostility toward "religion," and by that I assume you mean Christianity (and Islam too probably) because there seems to be a growth in the amount of overt religiosity. Whether this is actual or perceived I'm not sure, but I think there has been an increase in the amount of overt religiosity. Our own president makes a ridiculous amount of religious references

How does putting up this monument not establish religion, and more specifically Christianity? It is the only monument on court grounds. As far as I know there is no monument to the Buddha Avelokiteshvara, or perhaps a Krishna. I would assume this would offend some people out there. If we include one why don't we include all? And if we can't decide on one, we can choose none and leave religion to a personal matter.

Cohen v. California (1971)





So if i am walking down the street. And someone is wearing a jacket that has "F--k anything" on it...while i may find it offensive...the supreme court is telling me that i have to just look away. So as you can see, your point DOES apply to everything.

I am just asking...what are you offended by more? Have we reached a point in society where someone can say the most offensive of words without consequences but if any sort of religious word is uttered it is immediately thrown out? To me...thats the double standard. Nobody wants to make religion a special case for free speech or expression...people want to make it equal to other forms.

Actually, I agree with you. I admit that the wording I chose in my previous posts might lead one to suppose I would oppose the 10Cs in any way whatsoever being in these buildings - and that isn't the case. Your conclusion is familiar to me; it resembles my own. I was speaking more to the cases where the Ten Commandments have been without any other context - where its placement is hard to be seen as anything other than a direct religious/political statement.



Once again, you make a very salient point. Again, I agree - in part. You're right that the federal government reaches farther into our lives. But there is another reason for the change: while as a nation, we have a fairly high percentage of self-professing 'church-goers,' we have also become a far more secular people since the days of the founders of this country. Part of this is indeed because the federal government is so much more invasive, but can you perhaps see that our increasing secularism also plays a role?



"The people who have wanted to eliminate religion from American life?" Who are these people? I've never met these people. I think that the vast majority of secularists couldn't care less about "eliminating religion" from this country. It's just not something we're thinking about. I think people are just becoming less religious.

Here's something from Religioustolerance.org



Now, even though the rates are dropping, we are still a majority Christian nation. Many people who support these "secular" causes are in any case Christians as well. Indeed, I offered three specific examples of this earlier. One of these men was the minister at my parents' Presbyterian church in Charlottesville. He was certainly a religious man, and just as certainly he believed in his cause.

I have to agree with some here that a display of the ten commandments, within a display of all manners of historical links to law, would be acceptable.

The Supreme Court will be hard pressed to rule otherwise when you consider that The Supreme Court has its own displays of the Ten Commandments, including a frieze of Moses with the tablets in its courtroom, along with other historical figures.

link to another discussion with some pics from the USSC


However, a display of the commandments on their own would give the appearance of establishment IMHO and they will likely rule against such displays.

As a side note: This was discussed on several local radio programs last week, and I have heard or seen it discussed in many other places as well. I have seen or heard quite a few people claim that the 10 commandments being displayed in a government building is a clear case of establishment as it suggests favoritism to the Christian faith. Now it has been a long time since I was in Sunday School. However, the 10 Commandments are routed in the JEWISH faith, which is clear when you consider that the are brought to us by Moses, and the entire story is in the Old Testament. Now, the Christian Faith adopted the lion's share of the Jewish faith as well as the Old testament, So the 10 commandments are a part of that faith as well. Also, the Islamic faith has ties to both the Jewish and Christian faiths. There are of course all manners of other faiths out there (including those who are "faithless"), so this is certainly still an important issue, but the suggestion that the 10 commandments is a strictly Christian thing, just bugs me a bit.

The reason people say it is a "Christian thing" is because the Christians are the only ones making a big deal about it. I do not recall any Jewish or Muslim judges attempting to put a 6,000 stone monument of the 10 Commandments in their courthouse. Who is it that keeps going to court over their supposed right to shove their religion in everyone's face? Folding to the demands of the Christians on this would by default indicate that preference is being given to their religion. Furthermore, it would only indicate preference to the specific group of Christians that is making a big deal out of this, alienating not only people of different faiths, but also the majority of Christians, who, being normal people, do not make a public issue of their faith.

Is the display of the 10 commandments under the facts described above a violation of the establishment clause?

Let's see, Congress didn't pass a law that establishes religion - so no. But can a state legislature do something that Congress can't do?

Good question, and possibly the main thing here. I think it depends on lots of factors, and that is what the Supreme Court justices will likely focus upon. I personally would not support what Texas is doing, but then I personally don't give a hoot what Texas does with its courthouses, as long as it keeps its nose out of Colorado.

Would taking the monument out be stopping people from freely exercising their religions? I suppose, if worshiping a monument is part of the religions. I'm not aware of such a worship practice in Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

So the point becomes moot. Whether the monument stays or goes doesn't matter to a genuine Christian, Jew or Muslim. Worshipping monuments isn't part of the religion.

However, the first Commandment disallows specifically the worshipping of monuments. So why put a monument up in the first place?

Is that an attempt to establish Christianity as the official religion of, in this case, Texas? No, actually it is committing a major Christian sin. Christians ought to be up in arms about this practice, but apparently they are not.

What the heck is going on here? Are all these people claiming to be Christians actually something else? That could be. What else could they be?

Monument worshippers, that's obvious. Pulled into power plays on the rest of the population -- that's another common element. Whiners when the rest of the population pushes back, for sure.

We can also describe these types by what they are not: humble, reverent and loving -- or quiet. Sometimes violent. Possibly addicted to this monument worship thing.

Well. Is this really a Constitutional issue then? No, practicing religion has nothing to do with the situation.

Okay, so let the monument stay and open the doors to anyone else's idea of what monument ought to be worshipped on public property. Aye, what a mess that would become! How many ideas do we let in? Which ones do we disallow?

The decision: Let the monument stay or don't; it's up to each community to figure out how much it wants to spend on monuments to whatever, and how much the practice promotes harmony or dischord. Don't bother the Supreme Court with any more non-religious issues that are better contained within community.

May your god(s) have mercy on your soul(s), or whatever you want to call it or them.

Next case: prayer in public school.

[The justices stand and walk out of court and into retirement, to fish, play golf, or anything far, far away from the loud-mouthed, power-pushing troublemakers.]

This isn't Judge Roy Moore's case you know. I do believe he was wrong as he was doing exactly as you say-- pushing his religion in everyone's face. I support that he was taken off the bench for his actions too.

This is a different case. This monument has been in place for half a century. There are tons of these things all over the country from the 1950s. Why, now, so many years later must we root them out? It is such a waste of time and energy.

I think the resentment (at least on my end) about this type of case, is I see it as an intolerant few who are hell bent on rooting out any symbol of religion from the public square no matter how innocuous, how avoidable, how historic the symbol. I also have a problem with something being "constitutional" 50 years ago but not so now.

The Court's cobbled together jurisprudence in this area is a mess too. But that is what we get when we permit the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution like any other common law judge in the country.

Source

Once again, it is not from the 50s and it has been there for 44 years, not 50+. The Fraternal Order of Eagles did donate many such monuments in the 50s and the 60s, but this one was specifically donated in 1961.

Can we at least try to keep the facts straight? I am not sure what is gained by ignoring this fact, but I am not the only person who pointed this discrepancy out in this topic, and yet, it continues.

I stand corrected then; my shorthand reference to "50" should have read "44" in this case. Why is this point relevant? What difference does it make if it was donated 44 or 50 years ago? I don't get it. The reason I used the shorthand to begin with is because, many of these monuments (see the original facts from the brief) were donated during this time period by the same organization to different state and local governments. They were not all donated exactly 44 years ago. They were purchased in the 1950s and at various times donated out. Again, why does this make such a difference that you felt compelled to point it out?

Mainly because I believe we should at least keep the facts straight, and I noticed you attributed this monument to the 1950s even after someone from Texas pointed out that it had not been there quite that long.



However, I am glad you responded because my intent was to comment on the above as well.

I believe that Racial Segregation, discrimination, etc were all considered legal and constitutional for a century or so until they were challenged. People can get away with something for a very long time unless someone is willing to take the time, energy and money to challenge it before the USSC (and of course they agree to hear it).

This is a different case. This monument has been in place for half a century. There are tons of these things all over the country from the 1950s. Why, now, so many years later must we root them out? It is such a waste of time and energy.

H,

Because the Cold War is over and godless communism isn't a threat? Should we put plaques near these monuments, explaining how the country was in a war among minds during that period, and that the monuments represent more politically than religious?

I think the resentment (at least on my end) about this type of case, is I see it as an intolerant few who are hell bent on rooting out any symbol of religion from the public square no matter how innocuous, how avoidable, how historic the symbol. I also have a problem with something being "constitutional" 50 years ago but not so now.

Maybe it was unconstitutional back then too, but due to godless communism, it made sense. Or was it that people would have been labeled godless communists if they raised a fuss back then? I can see some sense in getting rid of reminders of a rather suppressive part of US history -- but it makes more sense (to me) to put the monuments into historical perspective via explanation plaques.

The Court's cobbled together jurisprudence in this area is a mess too. But that is what we get when we permit the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution like any other common law judge in the country.

What else would the SC do other than interpret the Constitution? Looks like a good topic for a separate debate.

Anyway, I bet it comes down to states' rights versus federalism, with some on individual rights versus majority control. Hope there's comment on the historical perspective of how the Cold War brought in religious symbolism as an attempt to keep people from thinking like godless communists.

That might include the "In God We Trust" thing on currency, which of course establishes monotheism as the official religion, and thus makes Islam and Judaism official, but leaves Christianity out due to the Trinity consisting of three spirits of worship. Oh yeah, and then there are the angels and saints. Maybe the official religion really is just Islam. Either get rid of the motto or change it to "In Allah We Trust."

Ooooo, that's just not PC in these days of wars in and on things having to do with godfull Islam fundamentalism. Better make that "In Jesus We Trust" -- um, maybe not, huh?

Phew! What a mess. Maybe it would have been better if the country had actually had some faith back there in the 1950s, rather than depending on slogans and monuments. But then, it was a war of minds -- propaganda is like artillery in such a war.

Hmmm, well, that brings up another thought about today's politics: Did the Cold War morph into the culture war? That might be an interesting way to look at things. Was too much leniency granted to the states during the Cold War, and now it has become a Big Dot Deal -- because the states are accustomed to doing things that would not have been acceptable otherwise? Will federalism prevail? Will the rights of the majority trump the rights of the individual? Exactly how much influence will modern history (say, since WW II) have on whatever decision is made?

I have to agree with nighttimer that sitting down with a tuna sandwich makes the most sense because there will be no winners here but the lawyers collecting their endless retainers.

Well actually the federal government does buy bibles, train and pay ministers of faith to and including building the buildings of worship and paying for the compensation of ministers and building maintenance. Each branch of military service has these buildings, bibles, chaplains and related spiritual garb. But, like the crosses on Arlington National Cemetery, the display of the 10C’s on state or federal property doesn’t establish a religion within the government. Washington was the federal chaplain in the first army so who will put words into the constitution that don’t exist?

If you refer to the US Constitution Secular or Judeo-Christian based post #64 I believe http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=139048 you will see clearly the basis of the statement in the “separation” statement was to indicate not “one” Christian body would be established in the Federal Government over another Christian body and not that the government will be free from religious contact in values or visual representations.

Haylyeanne you do tend to gloss over that which you cannot refute. From your practice of law you must surely know the importance of getting facts straight.

Whether or not the court eventually orders the monument removed, I think it is completely out of character with at least 14 of the 16 monuments. The first monument, “Heroes of the Alamo" was put in place in 1891, five years after opening of the new Texas Capitol. The old one burned in the 1860s. Of the sixteen monuments on the grounds, only two have no direct connection with Texas. One is the replica of the Stature of Liberty donated the Boy Scouts of America in 1951 and the other the 10C monument erected in 1961 which was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles of Texas. The 10C monument is the only one that introduces a religious theme to the grounds. Hence, your statement No. 1 (in the first quote) has no relevance. The capitol building is historical because of its late 19th century architecture.

Unless either god or Moses spoke with a Texas drawl, this monument has nothing whatsoever to do with the state’s history.

Again, for those interested, here’s a link to a description of all the monuments on the Texas Capitol grounds.

Link to All 16 Monuments



From the picture in the link, the government issued headstones at Arlington National Cemetery don’t appear to be crosses at all. While a may cross appear above the soldier's name on some, it seems to be missing on others. We wouldn't want to put a non-Christian soldier in a Christian grave.

A picture’s worth a thousand words.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/images/AN...ES/image04.html

We have heard the same arguments of "seperation of church and state" for literally centuries, since the founding of the constitution. The Establishment Clause was intended to keep the state out of the church not the church out of the state. Frankly people all have different views and all of them need to be expressed. I think, however, that the Ten C's were and still are used for the establishment of laws. A few examples include: "thou shalt not murder" therefore we have laws that prohibit murder, "thou shalt not steal" we have laws that prohibit stealing. It is because of thing like this that lead to the conclusion that the constitution is based on christian values. Because the commandments were posted in front of a criminal justice center that has many of it's laws based on the C's I think that it is acceptable for them to sit there. It is not proclaiming: "follow these or go to Hell all ye non- believers." No. It is just showing that those are what their laws are based on. They are not forcing their religion on anyone, so it is perfectly acceptable to have those sitting in front of the court house.

This ties in with the pledge having "under God" in it. The only people that should object to that are true pure atheists. It just says "under God", it does'nt specify which God. If you find it offensive to your religion avoid it. The court is not forcing you to look at it and believe that that is the true and final law that all need to follow. But in the long run I agree with Ol'sarge and Nighttimer: It will never end and it will never be decided. In fact, it can't, can it?

Yo BoF no crosses at Arlington? Well, I was stationed in DC MDW and often shopped at the MDW stores at Arlington. I believe, and I could be wrong, the field in front of the “Old Guard” and US Army Honor Guard barracks is full of crosses. Like I said I could be wrong because I’ve been to some sites in France such as pictured in this link http://www.abmc.gov/abmc2.htm and was stationed in Petersburg VA and viewed thousands of crosses on Civil War Cemeteries in the Petersburg-Richmond siege vicinity. Regardless, the mention of the crosses removal is the total basis of this thread because the far progressive left has pursued removal of all government affiliation with any symbol of Christianity and now much of the Democratic Party is on board with the far left progressives. Twenty years ago a cross or a 10C monument would offend no one and it is simple as that. The hatred for the winning Repubs with backing of Christians has caused many in the Dems to support the removal of the null objects. For example: City of Angles has heartbroken far left progressives and they with “losers backing” want to strip the nation of symbols: http://static.highbeam.com/n/nationalparks...onumentatmojav/ You see, the folks in the progressive left will not stop until the Armed services are stripped of all religious support and the historic sites with crosses are bulldozed, coins and paper money are burned and melted and they will try to do it with lawyers and “judicial activism” that isn’t supported by history nor supported by many Christians within the Dem’s party just to prove the constitution “says so”.

My point is the Dems are going to fail in this effort from within because your splinter groups will cause the party to self-destruct with harsh words that keep voters home that would vote for the Dems. An example are my half brother and his wife who are devout Southern Baptist that live in a mobile home on the outskirts of Philly that happen to have a gay son. When the far left progressive demands the symbols of Christianity come down and the ignorant white trailer trash bible thumper Repubs are in the way the votes of the two life long Dems will be lost. Your party elite spoke those words after the most recent election loss as they plotted a new direction more to the left. It is rather comical to see how so many hurtful things are said and then expect support by all. There are large portions of the Black and Hispanic vote who dislike the attack on religion and it’s symbols and the far left with the support of the moderate Dems will alienate them from the party, or at least not cause them to go to the polls to vote for someone carrying that message.

And that is why the SC will waffle on the decision or prepare to burn paper, melt coins and remove “all Christian” symbols from government. Trust me they will waffle!

Arlington Grave markers are uniform in shape (rectangular with a rounded top). However, they do offer faith emblems to be engraved on them.

source
I personally, do not consider this a separation of church and state issues because it would appear that literally any emblem of faith is is available, including the absence of one, and limited to being placed on the grave markers of INDIVIDUALS at their or their family's request.

Yo Ol Sarge, read with a little more precision and write with some other purpose than spreading America is a Christian nation propaganda. I didn’t say there were no crosses, only that the government issued headstones were not crosses. OLS’s description is correct.

Is the display of the 10 commandments under the facts described above a violation of the establishment clause?

No. I understand the separation of church and state. However, the country was founded on religious freedom. If not for these laws the country may not be existant.

I see this unsupported claim repeated over and over in debates about displaying the 10 Commandments in public buildings, as if the 10Cs have some special overriding importance in American jurisprudence.

Laws against murder and theft exist in pretty much all civilized nations - even non-Judeo-Christian ones, and have since way before Judeo-Christian morals became influential. Ancient Rome, Greece, Assyria, Mesopotamia, China, etc all had such laws.

Where is the US law against worshipping gods other than Yahweh, or the law against failing to honor your parents? How would the American economy thrive if we didn't covet our neighbor's stuff? If the Commandments are so influential, why are most of them not addressed at all in American law?

Along with the teachings of Christ and the ancient philosophers and more recent thinkers (Locke and Mills have been mentioned), they have influenced our laws and our Founders somewhat. American law draws from many influences, and the Ten Commandments aren't terribly well represented in the Constitution or case law. In fact, our foundational document contains a direct contradiction to the first Commandment.

Some Commandments happen to overlap a little with some US laws, and that's it.

The upshot is, while the Commandants may have had some small indirect influence on US law, it hasn't been enough to justify preeminent display of them in US courthouses. A huge display with text that starts out "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" in the center of a courthouse lobby is so out of proportion with the 10C's actual influence on our laws that it constitutes a violation of the establishment clause.

A few examples include: "thou shalt not murder" therefore we have laws that prohibit murder, "thou shalt not steal" we have laws that prohibit stealing. It is because of thing like this that lead to the conclusion that the constitution is based on christian values.

deathalive,

Please quote the Constitution on these two principles. If this can be done, then I'm willing to go with 20% basis on Christian values.

Otherwise, I'll go with what historians agree upon: The Ten Commandments actually started with the Code of Hammurabi. I'll also go with the simple observation that the principles of murder and theft as crimes are universal human values. Christianity has no exclusive claim to them.