Supreme Court weighs Ten Commandments cases

[Seeing Red]

www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/02/scotus.ten.commandments/

yes of course ... "separation of church and state," yes it sounds great, but GOD FORBID we actually try and OBSERVE it ...

" A cautious Supreme Court walked a legal tightrope Wednesday, seeming to look for ways that would allow displays of the Ten Commandments on government property to continue."

[CO Liberal]

1. Looking for Ways to IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION

Like they did on December 12, 2000.

[Disturbed]

2. Display on Govt. or State property is Un-Constitutional.

I don't see how the SC can declare otherwise.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. It's only unconstitutional if the SC says that it is

[progressoid]

5. Well a sensible person would think that

but the SC hasn't always been sensible. Esp with people like Scalia and Thomas in there.

[ClintonTyree]

6. Christ, it's hanging right inside the SC chamber, isn't it?

How do you THINK this one is going to go?

We're all going to be required to wear a "Ten Commandments" commemorative tee-shirt to any court proceedings from now on.

The fundies are all going to "rapture" in their pants after this one's ruled on.

Separation of church and state is a thing of the past in this country. Welcome to the American theocracy. The American Taliban will have a field day with this, rubbing it into those "filthy, godless Liberals" face. Oh, happy day. :eyes:

[progressoid]

7. "rapture" in their pants - - - That's a good one

I would like to think that we would win this one but we have become such a country of zealots that it seems unlikely.

Dear God, please save us from your followers...

[kypper]

29. I can't wait for the rapture

The general IQ of the world will jump at least 20 points.

[Cats Against Frist]

34. I can't wait for the rapture in my pants n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. Just make sure that you've got plenty of Scotchguard. n/t

[Sandpiper]

3. How in the world is it not a Violation of the Establishment Clause

To display something that starts out:

I am Yahweh thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

[HockeyMom]

8. Statues of Buddah, Zeus

Put up these statues RIGHT next to the 10 Commandments. If you can have 10 Commandments, you can have then have other RELIGIONS too. Want to get their goat, do it.

[Democrat Dragon]

17. Well, actually this does occur in the Bay Area.,

Golden Gate Park has several statues of Roman Gods, Colonial Spanish Priests, a pair of sphinxes, and a Buhdda statue. There is also a statue of Quetzalquatl that was built with taxpayer money in downtown San Jose. And y'know what? I've never heard of any complaints about the two places(Ok, there wer coplaints about Quetzalquatl, but not because of the church-and-state thing but that people said it looked like a piece of shit)

http://www.kreysler.com/projects/serpent/serpent.htm

So if you're going to rip out every 10 commandments statue, why not these statue? heck, why not change all the religious based names of cities and streets(San Jose, San Fransisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Santa Barbara and Santa Monica are all religious names).

[LARED]

9. Two things I find amazing about this

1. That people are so passionately against the the possibility that they might see the 10 commandment in a public place, and

2. How anyone thinks the Constitution forbids the display of the commandments. Public buildings have had religious icons and symbols since the US was formed. Don't you think if it was unconstitutional someone would have said something say 200 years ago?

[Kimber Scott]

10. How many years did it take for somebody to say something about

slavery? Because something's always been, doesn't make it always right. They should either tax the church, or keep their religious propaganda off our property. Or... they can allow all religions to display their didactic symbols and creeds, as well. Wiccans, Pagans, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc. And, if they post the Ten Commandments, they have to post ALL versions of them. The Catholics have theirs, the Jews have theirs, the Protestants have theirs. I know there are more.

Actually, come to think about it, I haven't seen too many churches with the Ten Commandments posted outside, bronzed, marbled and biggie-sized. So, why do they have to put them outside our civic buildings?

Every American has the right to freedom of and freedom FROM religion. MHO.

[LARED]

15. Ok

When was the last time the Ten Commandment were part of a civic building built in the last forty years? Not often I'd imagine. So why the need to cover up an old image. Is it offensive? If that's the standard then anything can be deemed offensive to someone and all our building and public square will look like cinder block cube with no aesthetic value.

Also I must disagree with your statement that

Every American has the right to freedom of and freedom FROM religion.

You have a right to freedom of religion, but there is no right to freedom from religion in the public square. MHO. This does not mean civic building should be adored with religious imagery, but the right to voice your opinion in the public square is foundation, even if it's of a religious nature.

[Spacejet]

18. "So why the need to cover up an old image"

Because it's the government telling me an atheist that I "shall have no other gods" besides the christian one. An act that is prohibited by the constitution.

[LARED]

21. The supreme court building is about seventy years old

When it was build no one seemed to think the government was telling anyone that "you shall have no other Gods."

No one to my knowledge though this image was an prohibited by the Constitution.

The part I don't get about folks like you is why is this so concerning to you. Are you somehow being manipulated into believing in a God because seventy years ago it was an accepted practice to adorn buildings in this way?

[Spacejet]

23. Hmm...

"no one seemed to think the government was telling anyone that "you shall have no other Gods."

Well gee, you see the 10 commandment thing they are showing me seems to tell me very clearly I shall have no other gods. Gee, sorry. It's just when something clearly tells me I shall have no other gods I assume that's what it means.

"Are you somehow being manipulated into believing in a God "

Yes I am because the government is putting up "COMMANDMENTS" VERY clearly telling me I "shall have no other gods besides...".

And WTF do christians get first priority? As an atheist, can I get something put up saying you shall have no gods? If not, why?

[LARED]

26. What in the world are you talking about?

The Ten Commandments are part of the Supreme Court building or any public building because Architects liked to make a statements with their designs. You should not view this display as a command from the government to be a Christian. In reality it is displayed because the Ten Commandment is considered biblical law and the building is the building of law. See the relationship. People understood that when it was built. To envision the Commandments as part of a government mandate is stretching it quite a bit. MHO.

You claim you are being manipulated by the government but your words and action tell me they are doing no such thing.

This is not about priorities, is it? It's about people that want to scrub the public square clean from any form of religion. While I appreciate and respect the fact that you may not believe and do not want any form of religion in the public. I know that in attaining that wish it will sterilize our society. MHO. In the mean time you should just try to laugh at the folks you disagree with. It's much easier on the blood pressure. Again MHO

[mondo joe]

30. But US law has nothing to do with biblical law

So there's no reason to intertwine one with the other.

[LARED]

33. I agree

But why does that necessitate the removal after being in place for seventy years?

[mondo joe]

25. The government should not endorse any religion.

That's the thing about "folks like me".

Want to wear it on a t shirt, post it on your lawn, paint it on your car, tattoo the 10 commandments on your forehead, fine.

But the GOVERNMENT should not.

[LARED]

27. That's the part I do not understand

How the Ten Commandments endorse a religion when it is displayed on a court house? The ten commandment were biblical law. The court house is our law. It's just symbolism, not a command or endorsement from the government of a religion.

In my view it is much about nothing.

[mondo joe]

28. If you use public funds to place religious law on public buildings

You have the PUBLIC funds endorsing that religion.

Government should be scruoulously neutral on religion.

[wuushew]

11. 200 years ago was quite different a different time

Our founding fathers were men of the enlightenment not evangelical nut jobs like the current resident of 1600 Penn. Avenue.

Also the founding of this country was mostly accomplished by White Northern European Protestants and Catholics. Just as the country's racial and ethnic diversity has increased so has its religious diversity. The go along to get along routine should be replaced with government completely removing itself from this area of potential divide.

[LARED]

13. I understand that

I guess I fail to see why these symbols must be removed. To what purpose does it serve? No new public building or squares incorporate religious imagery, so why all the fuss?

It's a part of our history. Does putting a cover over the ten Commandments somehow improve society? Are we so thin skinned as a people that removing this symbols is important?

[Occulus]

14. It's because of the implication

that someone not of the prescribed religion is not recognised as having the same status as one who does practice that religion.

It's very simple, really. It's about the practitioners of any one religion not being "better" in the eyes of the law than those of other religions.

[LARED]

16. I don't understand your point

Is it that someone might feel they will be treated differently by the law, or is it that someone with different religious values from the Judea-Christian one is being treated differently?

[Kimber Scott]

31. If it is ensconced in the structure and you want to call it art, I would

not object to it in an art history context, but when you have a judge defying a court order so he may place a new monument to the Ten Commandments on public property, I think there is a problem. It's religious bullying.

People like Roy Moore believe people cannot behave in a moral and just manner without being told to do so by a list of rules supposedly given down by God thousands of years ago on tablets of stone. I think he's wrong. There are people all over the world who's cultural and personal morals are more "pious" than ours who have never heard of the commandments. I could also argue the very people who scream the loudest about wanting to stage these commandments on public property, in hopes somehow they will miraculously change individual and cultural behavior, are the very ones who most severely break these rules.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"- I would argue many, if not most, of the right-wing, talking-head, neoconic, tax-evading, war-mongers that screech their holiness the loudest and call themselves above others in piety for their defense of their beloved commandments would not give up their wealth, all of it, to save a child, or an old man, but will use that money to kill the same. And, so they worship money above their god.

"Thou shalt not kill." - Funny I haven't been able to find the caveats that allow for pre-emptive warfare, shock and awe campaigns, and the selling of weapons of mass destruction to pawns in a game of empire followed by the destruction of the pawns when they misbehave. Nor, can I find the section condoning the death penalty.

"Thou shalt not steal." - But, you can bilk old ladies out of their grocery money on the promise of heaven to come? You can steal the infrastructure of an entire country in order to enrich a select few in your own? And you can allow the sick to die for the lack of money you've removed from health care programs?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."' I wonder if the number of times one lies gets him a deeper place in hell?

Oh, sure they can post this stuff where-ever they like, just not on public property. If they had any sense they'd be afraid to have people read these rules for fear it would piss them off ever more at their hypocrisy. But, they believe they can wear their piety around their necks. I believe they will hang themselves with it.

And with regard to another conversation you and I have going on this same thread, I DO have the RIGHT to freedom FROM religion. I wear no burka, real, or symbolic, and I will not. I take my religion at MY pleasure, not yours, George Bush's, Jerry Falwell's, or Osama bin Laden's. Thank you very much.

[mondo joe]

24. They DID say something about it 200 years ago,

Look at some of the history - particularly Jefferson and Madison.

And some of us don't give a fuck if we see the 10 commandments in a puplic place, so long as it's not paid for or supported by public $.

[minkyboodle]

12. Going insane here

If I hear the statement that our country was founded on Judeao-Christian ideals go unchallenged and accepted as fact one more time my head will explode. I swear to god, its like the Enlightenment doesn't even exist to Americans these days... oh thats right all those French guys, now I know why they don't want to mention the real source of most of our founding principles....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/04/opinion/main671823.shtml

[w4rma]

19. …

double post

[w4rma]

20. Allow it to be hung with lots of other stuff that helped give us our basis

for our laws, today. That's the only Constitutional way I can think of that it could be allowed.

Because, then, the context is no longer promoting a specific (state-endorsed) religion, but is instead promoting a view of our history.

[onager]

22. Jefferson: We didn't need no stinking 10 Commandments...

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814. From Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. XIV, Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, pp. 85-97:

...we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority, from that time to the date of the Magna Carta, which terminates the period of the common law...and commences that of the Statute Law...

This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.

Here, then, was a space of about two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law...

We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is...

Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland’s question. 'Why the ten commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England?'

We may say they are not because they never were made so by legislative authority, the document which has imposed that doubt on him being a manifest forgery."

[reprobate]

32. In reality, it's the Hamurabi code that should hang in our courtrooms.

And not the ten suggestions. Our laws were taken in large part from this code, not from the commandments. It's far more appropriate to a house of public justice, and has the advantage of being purely nuetral religiously.

And, by the way, freedom to practice my religion, or no religion is dependant on not being forced to submit to YOUR religion. You would think the christians, who claim so much persecution, would be particularly sensative to this.

Futher proof that ANY organized religion will seek power thru the state until it controls the state. Historically it has always been so. Particularly true for christianity. Go figure.

[mmonk]

35. If they rule in the findamentalists favor

It's time to demand that writings of Buddha be put in our courthouses along with the Quran. We should demand it based on their decision since people of both of these religions have contributed to America (mainly Buddhists and western expansion with RR tracks). Demand it. Give them a taste of their own medicine. Jam the courts. It's time TO QUIT SITTING ON OUR HANDS. True patriots fight.