Supreme Court won't test constitutionality of Ten Commandments monument on statehouse grounds

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

I don't; I care about atheists' rights.

 

Now, instead of making dumb references to my nickname (and I strongly suspect that *your* real name isn't "OldGreyEagle", either), did you have anything constructive to add?

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

 

 

The case wasn't about a public forum where anyone could put up signs; if it was, atheists would be able to erect a sign that says "gods are myths". Theres precedent that there is, Tiernans counter-monument in Colorado. What was the result of that action? This was about the government deciding to put up a sign that starts with "thou shalt have no other gods before me". The government has no business telling its citizens which gods to believe in, if any. Given your attitude, the local government would have to power to promote whatever religions they felt like promoting, which is why ACLU lawsuits like this are needed in the first place. The state does not endorse a religion when it enacts neutral policies that happen to benefit a religion, the neutrality lies in the Ten Commandments history in establishing our law. The test of an endorsement of religion is determined by looking at the act through the eyes of a reasonable person, if the Ten Commandments were used for the basis of our law how would you find this as an endorsement? Our laws came from the Ten Commandments not the nine commandments. Cert. denied does not set precedent nor does one Circuit precedent make a universal mandate for all Circuits. In the near future, this will certainly be brought again when the SCOUTS retires half its bench.

 

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

Not that this topic has much of ANYTHING to do with scouting issues. I think public opinion v. religion v. BSA has a connection. The ACLU is not pro Scouts either. Its close enough for government work.

 

 

 

[sctmom 11]

Dedicated Dad, could you point me to more information about the U.S. laws being based on the Ten Commandments? Are there specific books or authors that you know of that address this subject? I am very interested in reading more about this.

 

I recently read the book "John Adams" by David McCullough. It mainly addressed the documents that Adams was key in writing and signing. Very interesting book by the way. Reminded me of how little I learned of history in school.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

...

"Theres precedent that there is, Tiernans counter-monument in Colorado. What was the result of that action?"

 

As far as I know, it's still in litigation; I think your example only helps my position, since atheists have to file lawsuits to get their point of view displayed in the same manner as religious points of view. If it was a real public forum, anyone could put up their views WITHOUT having to sue for the right to be heard on the same basis as anyone else.

 

 

...

"The state does not endorse a religion when it enacts neutral policies that happen to benefit a religion, the neutrality lies in the Ten Commandments history in establishing our law."

 

This is obviously a false reason, as it's always the ten commandments that gets pushed, instead of English common law or the Magna Carta or something like that. Plus, who's version do you use? Jews, Protestants, and Catholics all number & phrase them differently.

 

...

"The test of an endorsement of religion is determined by looking at the act through the eyes of a reasonable person, if the Ten Commandments were used for the basis of our law how would you find this as an endorsement?"

 

Because it isn't true.

 

"thou shalt have no other gods before me" directly contradicts the first amendment; this has nothing to do with US law.

 

"thou shalt not make any graven image, etc" also directly contradicts the first amendment, as people are free to make and worship graven images in the US.

 

"thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain" also directly contradicts the first amendment.

 

The bit about remembering the sabbath is ignored in the US, as the few blue laws that still outlaw some acts generally prohibit them on Sunday, while the sabbath is from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.

 

Honoring your mother & father isn't enforced by law in the US.

 

Coveting is perfectly legal in the US, and actually encouraged by capitalism.

 

The ones that are left aren't even close to being unique to christianity - don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, and don't commit adultery. May as well go back to Hamurabi for those.

 

I think it's pretty clear that people who support government endorsement of the ten commandments are doing to because they want the government to push their religion. If you want the ten commandments on public display, there's no shortage of private property where dozens of such monuments could be erected by the owners, such as churches or the lawns of private homes.

 

But ten commandments pushers don't want this; they want the government to be seen promoting *their* religious views. They want the government to tell all its citizens to have "no other gods" except Jehovah. And they don't want a public forum where other people can put up contradictory messages, such as "gods are myths".

[NJCubScouter 1389]

DedicatedDad says:

 

The ACLU is not pro Scouts either.

 

And yet, here I am, having been at various times a member of both. (I let my ACLU dues lapse awhile back.) I agree with each about 95 percent of the time. But somehow, the BSA has managed to make the focus of everyone outside the organization that small fraction in the middle where the two organizations disagree.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I could be a native American

Or a Vigil member of the Order of the Arrow, or I could just be Old and Grey and an Eagle

 

Actually I have nothing to add other that I thought the Hammurabi code was the basis of laws rahter then the 10 commandments. And

I just like Rocky and Bullwinkle as you must as well, just searching for middle ground(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Dedicated Dad 10]

As far as I know, it's still in litigation; I think your example only helps my position, since atheists have to file lawsuits to get their point of view displayed in the same manner as religious points of view. If it was a real public forum, anyone could put up their views WITHOUT having to sue for the right to be heard on the same basis as anyone else. Its the states interests that would weigh on permanent monuments and indeed that would support my point. This is obviously a false reason, as it's always the ten commandments that gets pushed, instead of English common law or the Magna Carta or something like that. Not really, the same case can be made that the Ten Commandments were the origin of these systems as well and its none of your concern how a local issue is determined be valid or not. If they think their laws came from Buddha thats their interpretation. Plus, who's version do you use? Jews, Protestants, and Catholics all number & phrase them differently. Thats irrelevant because the act is not specific to religion but to the origin of law. Tenets of other religions could be used under similar premise. Because it isn't true. Ill concede a few of these but it still isnt called the five commandments. But for fun lets examine the following: "thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain This can certainly be considered cursing and is not protected against profanity laws. Remembering the Sabbath is remembered in a variety of ways, hunting restriction, state and private liquor distribution, government agencies are closed routinely in the vast majority of states as well as federal institutions over and above local blue laws. Honoring your mother & father isn't enforced by law in the US. Maybe but power of attorney is usually unchallenged from children, why does that honor exist? The ones that are left aren't even close to being unique to Christianity - don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, and don't commit adultery. May as well go back to Hamurabi for those. Thats sophistical at best, its in the Ten Commandments and thats point at hand, not the Magna Carta, English Law or the Hamurabi. I think it's pretty clear that people who support government endorsement of the ten commandments are doing to because they want the government to push their religion. Not really and I reject your insinuation of government endorsement, you havent logically proven that it is. If you want the Ten Commandments on public display, there's no shortage of private property where dozens of such monuments could be erected by the owners, such as churches or the lawns of private homes. They want the government to tell all its citizens to have "no other gods" except Jehovah. And they don't want a public forum where other people can put up contradictory messages, such as "gods are myths". Local legislatures deserve the right to represent their constituents.

 

 

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

And yet, here I am, having been at various times a member of both. (I let my ACLU dues lapse awhile back.) And why does that not surprise me?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

...

"Ill concede a few of these but it still isnt called the five commandments."

 

Which is exactly why the TEN commandments don't deserve to be posted by the government; many of them directly contradict the constitution.

 

And no, legislators do NOT have the authority to promote their constituents' religious views. Do you think it would be legal for a city hall to have a permanent sign saying "don't be a polytheist"? That isn't promoting a religion, either, so by your reasoning it'd be legal. Same with "don't be a Jew", or the more sinister implication of "don't be a Jew in THIS town".

[Bob Russell 10]

Hey Merlyn, welcome back. I enjoy it when you are here, so that I can post and have Dedicated Dad and I maybe somewhat agree on something.

 

Although I have trouble with just the ten commandments being posted, I support their posting when done in a civic context. Recognizing that the ten commandments were an early form of laws governing a people I believe is such a civic context. This can be done by also recognizing other forms of laws, both secular and religious, such as the Magna Carta as an example of secular law, and the ten commandments, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc. All of these guided people in their lives, and they make good examples that should not be rejected outright from public property. But such a display should not allow your "Gods are myths" sign, because that is a purely religious (anti-religious) statement not consistent with the context of the display.

 

The ACLU appears to have a knee-jerk reaction to anything Christian, but not regarding other religions. After September 11, there sprung up a wealth of Islamic teaching in public schools, and I heard no objection from the religion-separatists. Much of the teaching can be good, if the teaching is about the religion and not the teaching of the religion. However, when it comes to Christianity, I do not believe that the ACLU recognizes the same distinction. But with other religions, they just look the other way. Eastern religions are often allowed to be presented, but pretending that it is lifestyle and not religion that is being presented.

[Dedicated Dad 10]

But such a display should not allow your "Gods are myths" sign, because that is a purely religious (anti-religious) statement not consistent with the context of the display. Bob, I respectfully disagree. You can find the law in Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette if youre talking about a temporary/non-permanent sign.

[Dedicated Dad 10]

Which is exactly why the TEN commandments don't deserve to be posted by the government; many of them directly contradict the constitution. Again irrelevant. If the Ten Commandments were/are a basis of inspiration for law, as it was for our founding fathers (Jefferson, even though a Deist) to even write the constitution, its tenets are immaterial to the promotion of religion and have nothing to do with the establishment clause.

And no, legislators do NOT have the authority to promote their constituents' religious views. Not the point and repeating it over and over wont make it applicable to a representative government. Do you think it would be legal for a city hall to have a permanent sign saying "don't be a polytheist"? Yes if it had a secular reason for its existence and it was approved by local legislature. What would be the states interest? That isn't promoting a religion, either, so by your reasoning it'd be legal. It would be against the free exercise clause should there be no reason as stated above. Same with "don't be a Jew", or the more sinister implication of "don't be a Jew in THIS town". Again, what would the compelling states interest, a monument to how discrimination raised public awareness? Id be hard pressed to find a context that would work here.

 

 

 

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

Which is exactly why the TEN commandments don't deserve Oops, I missed that little jab, its not up to you and the ACLU to determine who or what is deserving of states interest. If you want to have your say, try running for office.

 

 

 

[Bob Russell 10]

DD, I don't think we disagree here. My post had to do with more permanent displays, not in the context of a regular public forum. In those forums, restrictions on content of speech should be very limited. A display such as I referred to would be a government-sponsored display, such as monuments, classroom displays by teachers, etc. In such a display, different examples of forms of rules, both secular and religious, should be able to be displayed, to show the various ways that different groups of people have established rules/laws to govern expected behavior. It is in such a display that a "God is myth" sign would be out of context and therefore excluded.