my 2cents about 10 C Statue

Trezza

Senior member
Sep 18, 2002
522
0
0
Ok well first off this story got way too much air time and with all the air time that it had never focused on the correct issues.

First of I don't see how the statue of the 10 c's is the US government imposing Christianity / Jewishness (not trying to spell judyism; opps) on people.

Second that Judge Butts or Justice Butts is a real idiot. People are accusing you of merging church and state and his legal excuse of why the statue is allowed to stay there is because its a peice of god's work.

How can you be a judge/justice if this is an example of your reasoning skills! His defense works against him. If his defense was that its just a piece of history / its just art / anything else other than what he said. He might have a chance at winning his case. Nope he's just a dumb redneck judge.

What prolly happened is that nobody carried about the statue, he screwed somebody who didn't agree with his beliefs and then they screwed him with this statue thing.

what you think?
 

DML1001

Member
Apr 6, 2003
37
0
0
The 10 commandments are definately not religiously neutral.

They clearly state that there is ONE god, and forbid the worship of false idols, which are clearly in direct contradiction with the constitution.

The commandments also declare the sabbath a holy day, and in some versions name god as Yaweh, which muslims would certianly not like (ever hear of Allah?)

As such, anyone who is an agnostic, atheist, buddhist, hindu, or many other religions that don't believe the above shouldn't have to walk into a court which is supposted to uphold the constitution, not the 10 commandments which are the basis for juedo/christian law.

If there was a stone moument that said "God is dead" or a copy of the Koran on the wall, the same people who are out there protesting the removal of the stone would be demanding that the 'blasphemous' document be removed.

As for the judge, he is definately a COMPLETE moron. He is sworn to uphold and enforce the laws of this country, not his own personal religous beliefs.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DML1001
The 10 commandments are definately not religiously neutral.

They clearly state that there is ONE god, and forbid the worship of false idols, which are clearly in direct contradiction with the constitution.

The commandments also declare the sabbath a holy day, and in some versions name god as Yaweh, which muslims would certianly not like (ever hear of Allah?)

As such, anyone who is an agnostic, atheist, buddhist, hindu, or many other religions that don't believe the above shouldn't have to walk into a court which is supposted to uphold the constitution, not the 10 commandments which are the basis for juedo/christian law.

If there was a stone moument that said "God is dead" or a copy of the Koran on the wall, the same people who are out there protesting the removal of the stone would be demanding that the 'blasphemous' document be removed.

As for the judge, he is definately a COMPLETE moron. He is sworn to uphold and enforce the laws of this country, not his own personal religous beliefs.

How does a monument impose things on you? THAT is the issue as I see it. Is the judge a nutball and possibly a fanatic? Sure - I'd go with that, but to say a monument has the "promotional" / "endorsement" power that people are saying it does is hogwash. To each their own though.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
The 1st Amendment precludes the Federal Govt. from making such laws. Where does it say the States may not? This is a Republic. (assume the Alabama constitution is silent on the matter)

Remember the Articles limit the states the BofR limits the Federal Government.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I'm not trying to crap here, but haven't we just had at least 10 threads posted on this very topic? I keep seeing the same people making the same statements over and over. Can't we just dredge up one of the many Judge Moore/Ten Commandments threads that are floating around here in P&N?

:)
 

Trezza

Senior member
Sep 18, 2002
522
0
0
I don't see this as being a black and white issue. If you take the 10 c's out of their biblical text, they are all common beliefs that 90% of the world would agree with. The religious commandments don't specify which god they reference or which day is the sabbath (holy day). The only religion that could be offended would be any polythiestic religion. The 10 c's don't have the same impact as a statue of jesus on the cross.

If said statue is so offensive because of its religious backround then why do we still swear on a bible, or other text when giving testimony.

On the O'Reilly factor today he said something to the effect of "The US Founders wanted a Gov't free of church ties but a society where people believed that religon was the reason to behave not man made laws."

That raises a question of is this an example of the gov't or individual member of that gov't having clouding ties to a church?

I believe from, what he has stated in the news that he is deeply tied to the church in such a manner that he is bound to it in every aspect of his life, thus creating a barrier for him to be a good judge in a multicultural america.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: Trezza
On the O'Reilly factor today he said something to the effect of "The US Founders wanted a Gov't free of church ties but a society where people believed that religon was the reason to behave not man made laws."

He never gave any evidence of this. Just because he says it doesn't make it true.

If said statue is so offensive because of its religious backround then why do we still swear on a bible, or other text when giving testimony.

That's not done that much anymore.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
3
76
Originally posted by: LunarRay
The 1st Amendment precludes the Federal Govt. from making such laws. Where does it say the States may not? This is a Republic. (assume the Alabama constitution is silent on the matter)

Remember the Articles limit the states the BofR limits the Federal Government.

Didn't the articles also say that States if they were unhappy with the Union could secede?
 

shuan24

Platinum Member
Jul 17, 2003
2,558
0
0
Originally posted by: Trezza
I don't see this as being a black and white issue. If you take the 10 c's out of their biblical text, they are all common beliefs that 90% of the world would agree with. The religious commandments don't specify which god they reference or which day is the sabbath (holy day). The only religion that could be offended would be any polythiestic religion. The 10 c's don't have the same impact as a statue of jesus on the cross.

If said statue is so offensive because of its religious backround then why do we still swear on a bible, or other text when giving testimony.

On the O'Reilly factor today he said something to the effect of "The US Founders wanted a Gov't free of church ties but a society where people believed that religon was the reason to behave not man made laws."

That raises a question of is this an example of the gov't or individual member of that gov't having clouding ties to a church?

I believe from, what he has stated in the news that he is deeply tied to the church in such a manner that he is bound to it in every aspect of his life, thus creating a barrier for him to be a good judge in a multicultural america.


Honestly, putting my hand on a bible in court means didley squat to me. Sure, it may mean something holy or spiritual or whatever to you, but it has the same effect as me putting my hand on a frog and swearing to him.

Now, several people have pointed out that our laws are NOT based on the 10 commandments, SINCE we do not have a law saying that we may not use the lords name in vain or whatever other commandments there are. Sure, our laws are somewhat common with the 10 commandments, but it doesnt mean we should post it in front of the courthouse. I dont know much, but doesnt the Koran have some laws in common with ours? Why dont we put a monument of the code of Hummarabi too? Oh yeah, thats right, because that would be just too dispicable to even comprehend.
 

DML1001

Member
Apr 6, 2003
37
0
0
How does a monument impose things on you? THAT is the issue as I see it. Is the judge a nutball and possibly a fanatic? Sure - I'd go with that, but to say a monument has the "promotional" / "endorsement" power that people are saying it does is hogwash. To each their own though.

If you want to argue that a moument doesn't impose anything on anyone, then by the same reasoning a stanist who is running your kids school has the right to install a big monument to satan in the front lobby that says "Satan is our lord" in big letters on it. And by your same reasoning, this doesn't 'impose' anything on the kids.

You think that 'I am the LORD your God. You shall have no other gods before Me.' isn't an endorsement of religion?? I bet that If I had a moument installed that said "There is NO god." people would be up in arms, even though I haven't referred to any specific god, and therefore according to Bill O'Rielly my monument is 'religously neutral'

Posting any sort of religious documents in any form counts as imposing them on other people. If this judge is allowed to post whatever he wants to in a state owned court, then by the same logic a school principal has the right to plaster porn all over the school that he runs, or have the koran engraved onto the walls of the school.

These are being imposed since people are basically REQUIRED to go to these buildings at some point. If you are involved in a court case that gets appealed to the alabama supremem court, you HAVE to go to the building and see whatever crap the judge has put up. If you cant afford to get your kids out of public school, they will be forced to see anything that is put up there.

This is also fundamentally unfair becuase people seem to think that this judge should have some kind of special right to do whatever the hell he wants. If I walk into a federal building and put up a mounment to satan, the thing will be removed immediately. What the hell gives this judge a right to sneak in a moument that he never had approved by anyone? The chief justice of a state supreme court is not above the law, nor does he have any special rights.

If you need any further proof of that, look at Florida. The florida supreme court didn't ignore the federal supreme court when they ordered that the recount be halted. If they had behaved as judge moore has, the conservatives would have rioted. But now that a judge is behaving in the same manner, but in support of something they like, they no longer have a problem with it.

Originally posted by: Trezza
I don't see this as being a black and white issue. If you take the 10 c's out of their biblical text, they are all common beliefs that 90% of the world would agree with. The religious commandments don't specify which god they reference or which day is the sabbath (holy day). The only religion that could be offended would be any polythiestic religion. The 10 c's don't have the same impact as a statue of jesus on the cross.

If said statue is so offensive because of its religious backround then why do we still swear on a bible, or other text when giving testimony.

On the O'Reilly factor today he said something to the effect of "The US Founders wanted a Gov't free of church ties but a society where people believed that religon was the reason to behave not man made laws."

That raises a question of is this an example of the gov't or individual member of that gov't having clouding ties to a church?

I believe from, what he has stated in the news that he is deeply tied to the church in such a manner that he is bound to it in every aspect of his life, thus creating a barrier for him to be a good judge in a multicultural america.[/i]

This is utter nonsense. The 10 commandments are NOT agreed on by 90% of the worlds population. They are DISTINCTLY judeo/christian rules, and nearly ALL other major religions would disagree strongly with them. Here are a few of the commandments:

"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God?

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

According to the second commandment, BUDDHISM and HINDUISM are ILLEGAL. There are well over a billion hindus living in India today, as well as another billion chinese that would not agree with the 10 commandments at all. Thats already 1/3 of the world's population in just two countries. Additionally, jews and christians cant even agree what day the sabbath IS. There is no way in hell that any large majority of the people would agree with all of the commandments, and even if they did, that has no legal relevance at all. You still have no right to impose any religious text on anyone else.

To top it off, many versions of the 10 commandments NAME THE GOD THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. Here is another version of the first commandment:

1) I am Yahweh your god who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.

There is no way in HELL that is 'neutral' as to which god they are talking about. This is clearly the jewish god that led the israelites from egypt. Hell, even the arabs wouldn't agree with this version of the commandments, so there goes another few billion people.

As for O'Rielly, you'd learn a lot more watching a blank screen for an hour. None of his arguments even made the slightest bit of sense. He kept rambling on about how the commandments arent 'specific' about what religion they endorse, and are therefore ok. There is no basis for this anywhere, and its not even true. As mentioned above, the commandments are quite specific in naming Yahweh as the god in many versions, and the fact that they come from the old testament should give everyone a BIG CLUE. The commandments also claim that any polytheistic religion or any monotheistic religion that does not believe in Yahweh is forbidden. How the hell is that neutral?

By the same reasoning, I could have a moument that says "Yahweh and Allah don't exist" and because it doesn't specifically name ONE religion, it is now magically religously neutral and I can put it up anywhere.

His comment about the founders wanting god in public life is completely irrelivent. God IS in public life, there are churches everywhere. The founders didnt have anything against god, they just wanted god out of the governemnt, which is what this is all about. Its perfectly fine with me if anyone wants to post the commandments on their front lawn or in front of a church, but not in a federal courthouse that is supposed to uphold the laws of this country, and not those of the old testament.

His historical arguments are useless anyway. Conservatives love to talk about what the founding fathers wanted, but only when it suits them. The never try to argue that we should return to slavery simply because thats the way the founders wanted it, or that women should loose their right to vote. I have also heard some morons claim that we should leave god in the pledge because thats the way the 'founders' wanted it, when in fact CONGRESS added god to the pledge in the first half of the 20th century! If the founders wanted THEIR god imposed on everyone, there would be no first ammentment, they would have put god in the pledge themselves, and they would have passed the commandments as the first 10 ammendments.

But they didn't...
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
How does a monument impose things on you? THAT is the issue as I see it. Is the judge a nutball and possibly a fanatic? Sure - I'd go with that, but to say a monument has the "promotional" / "endorsement" power that people are saying it does is hogwash. To each their own though

this country and its governement represenatives are suppose to be neutral. When officials act as represenstatives of the majority religion, attempt to bestow their beliefs based on the religious majority, then they've stepped out of line. He was acting as if he was above the law. I mean who does he think he is? If he wants to put that in his own front yard, more power to him. I don't think saying a prayer in a courtroom is imposing religious values, putting up the ten commandments, in a public, govermental structure, where individuals from all walks of life and faiths converge, where everyone has to see it, is.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: LunarRay
The 1st Amendment precludes the Federal Govt. from making such laws. Where does it say the States may not? This is a Republic. (assume the Alabama constitution is silent on the matter)

Article VI

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.."
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
the founding fathers of our country were religiously neutral, which is why our laws are the way they are. That judge disrespected the laws, and he got what was coming to him. I think he was in the wrong line of work anyway.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Originally posted by: LunarRay
The 1st Amendment precludes the Federal Govt. from making such laws. Where does it say the States may not? This is a Republic. (assume the Alabama constitution is silent on the matter)

Article VI

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.."

No doubt it is the Supreme Law of the Land. My statement is to do with who has what authority to create law that is NOT in conflict with the Constitution as written and Amended. Given the Articles do not limit the states in the "religion" issue and the 1st Amendment limits only the Federal Government and the 10th gives the undressed powers to the states or people. I know that the USSC opines all the time and this BECOMES the Amended Constitution by opinion. I was trying to get to the difference between Strict Construction vs Today it means this or that.. Like in the Articles it says (paraphrasing) ,,, the Governor SHALL extradite... Our USSC has read SHALL and said it means MAY. Why have an amendment process that requires 2/3 of the states when you can get a 5/4 of the USSC to decide that IS means FOUR POUNDS OF CORN!
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: LunarRay
The 1st Amendment precludes the Federal Govt. from making such laws. Where does it say the States may not? This is a Republic. (assume the Alabama constitution is silent on the matter)

Remember the Articles limit the states the BofR limits the Federal Government.

Didn't the articles also say that States if they were unhappy with the Union could secede?


I think it is implied that if the people don't like it they can go back home to England. I suppose if 2/3 of the states agreed to an amendment allowing a state to secede we in CA. could avoid all that debt... and have Arnold put the statue of the 10 C's on Hollywood blvd.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"My statement is to do with who has what authority to create law that is NOT in conflict with the Constitution as written and Amended."

Your argument is not logical. State law cannot supersede federal law, based on Article VI and federal law is governed by the 1st Amendment with regard to religion. Therefore it follows that state law is subject to the same limitations.

The words are there in the Constitution, the only way to get to your position is to ignore the Constiutution.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well, I've always understood the "Bill of Rights" to be an amendment of the Articles preceding them and restrictive to the "Strong Central Government" (and Hamilton). IOW, the BOR say in the 1st Amendment that the Central Government cannot make laws etc. that are to do with religion, as written, but, not that the States may not. Just as the 10th gives all other power to the states and or people. The Constitution relates to the Federal Government with regard to its power and its restrictions. A Republic gives unenumerated power to the members of the Republic. If the States sought to Coin Money or wage war or ratify a treaty binding on the other members as well those actions would be contrary to the power granted the Central Government and not Constitutional.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"Well, I've always understood.. "

Well, unfortunatley it turns out in the real world you were mistaken. :moon:
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Well, I've always understood.. "

Well, unfortunatley it turns out in the real world you were mistaken. :moon:

Won't be the first time.
Depends on the level on 'construction' one places in the hands of the USSC via who is on the court, don't you think? An example I gave somewhere else regarding the Articles indicating explicitly that the Governors "SHALL extradite ... " was determined to mean "MAY", is an example of 'loose construction' IMO.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"The explication of the religion clauses by the scholars has followed a restrained sense of their meaning. Story, who thought that ''the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice,'' looked upon the prohibition simply as an exclusion from the Federal Government of all power to act upon the subject. ''The situation . . . of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.''

''Probably,'' Story also wrote, ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.'' The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment.

This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.'' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position.

This is a scholary annotation to the 1st Amendment.





 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
The problem with gov't promoting religion, be it state or federal, is how does said gov't attain a balance between ALL religions? Any promotion on the gov't's part, would by nature, create an automatic imbalance. How do you ensure that all religions are promoted equally and without bias? It would be a legal quagmire. Hence the decision by the USSC during the last 50 years to strive towards neutrality in matters of religion. What's so inherently wrong with neutrality, other than the fact that your religion of choice may not get promoted on state or federal property?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The problem with gov't promoting religion, be it state or federal, is how does said gov't attain a balance between ALL religions? Any promotion on the gov't's part, would by nature, create an automatic imbalance. How do you ensure that all religions are promoted equally and without bias? It would be a legal quagmire. Hence the decision by the USSC during the last 50 years to strive towards neutrality in matters of religion. What's so inherently wrong with neutrality, other than the fact that your religion of choice may not get promoted on state or federal property?

That's my point regarding the 'loose construction' of the Constitution by the USSC. I don't disagree with the evolution, just that in and of itself the Constitution does not preclude the various states from creating in their own Constitution (assuming it would pass) that only Catholic religion may be practiced (as an outrageous example)
Emerson v BoE was the first such decision (I think). Judge Moore may have argued more reasonably that his monument was either not a religious monument but a proper reference to Law and or that even if it was a religious monument it was not a Federal issue but, a State issue and up to his court to be the final authority on State issues given the Constitution's Articles which limit the States is silent on the issue and the Amendments which limit the Federal Government explicitly denies the Federal Government the right to make any law regarding establishment of religion. The issue is not the creating of Federal Law but of the States rights to exersize the power the Constitution gives them in the 10th (every thing else).

I edit to add: I am waiting for the argument that the 14th 'equal' clause would preclude the monument being on the front porch unless an equal size and depictive monument for every religion or non religion was also placed with no deference to any monument of another..
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"Depends on the level on 'construction' one places in the hands of the USSC via who is on the court, don't you think?"

No I don't think it takes any construction at all. I think the Constitution is quite clear on the issue and the only "construction" that takes place comes from those who want to force their religious beliefs on everyone.

Chain of logic..
1. the Constitution says that the Constitution and laws that flow from the power it bestows on the Congress take precedence over state law.
2. the 1st Amendment forbids Congress to establish a religion as well as other
3. Obviously if Congress must abide by the 1st Amendment, any level of government that the Constitution has given lesser authority than the Congress must also abide by the 1st Amendment.


Your argument suggests that state governemnt could ban newspapers, exterminate Jews, etc, and it would all be legal under our Constitution.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
DeadParrotSketch,

I am saying that the first 10 amendments limit only the federal congress. They were the Bill of Rights demanded by the states in opposition to Hamilton and others who wanted a strong central government. The Articles limit the states as well as other amendments but, not the BOR. The BOR amends the Articles where appropriate and or explicitly states the limits on the Central Government. This is a Republic. This means that the States have the power to do whatever they are not limited by the Constitution to do. For this lets assume there is no further amendments. If tomorrow 9 very conservative justices sat on the USSC and decided that all the prior opinions (decisions) were wrong and just the Document is the law we'd have strict construction. If it don't say it it ain't a right or limit.