[Update: USSC denies last-minute appeal] Defiant chief justice vows to keep Ten Commandments monument

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

I did NOT say that I wanted Christianity endoresed ABOVE ALL OTHER RELIGIONS - I just don't think that you can remove them all because of YOUR interpretation of the Constitution. If there was a statue of Budda - I wouldn't care, just like I wouldn't care if there was a different monument on gov't property. BTW - you seem to be selectively reading that summary. I've read that many times and it means jack squat because it is just opinions and not law. It will be interesting to see how the USSC will address this issue. Hopefully it will ONLY use the Constitution as their guide unlike some of their recent rulings.

Your defense of Moore indicates your support of Christianity to be endorsed by government above all other religions. I don't see any statues or monuments representing other religions in the judicial building rotunda. Do you? And this has nothing to do with MY interpretation of the Constitution, but it has every bit to do with the long-standing interpretation by the USSC and lesser courts that mandate government neutrality when it comes to religion.

A federal court order isn't a law and it can be challenged and appealed. I don't think he is setting a good example by refusing to comply but then again I don't think the court set a good example of following the law either. Both are wrong and one will be vindicated.

He sneaked the monument into the rotunda in the middle of the night. He has cost the state taxpayers of Alabama in excess of $1 Million dollars defending it. And now, he has the gall to disobey a federal court order mandating that the monument be removed or the state will be found in contempt and fined $5,000 per day. Wow, but that's OK with you Cad. I'll remember that next time there's an issue where someone is disobeying court orders or selectively following certain laws because they don't believe in them. Unfortunately for you Cad, we live in a country ruled by law. Judges especially, have a duty to uphold the law. It's beyond unethical for Moore to do what he's doing.

How so? I don't know where you get off saying that Christians feel they are above the law. I think you are not understanding that there is a difference between Man's law and God's law. God's law is greater than man's, but God also said that we need to follow those laws which are set forth by man unless they are in direct violation of God's law.

Well, apparantly one Christian (i.e. Moore) feels that he's above the law. I'm not sure what your point is since we're not discussing God's law and this forum is not an opportunity for you to proselytize (again). In case you've forgotten, we don't live in a theocracy Cad, we live in a democracy. If you want to live by religious law so badly, I hear Iran has something along those lines going on. Why don't you check it out? 😉

The question remains - how does a monument equate to stiffling a person's right to freedom of religion? It doesn't - end of story.

It's not. By insisting that this case is about things that it's not, you only serve to distract from the issue at hand. As usual. The monument represents government endorsement of a particular religion. Government endorsement of a particular religion to the exclusion of other religions (i.e. one above another) is unconstitutional. The USSC and many other courts have a long case history of decisions on cases just like this one.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

I did NOT say that I wanted Christianity endoresed ABOVE ALL OTHER RELIGIONS - I just don't think that you can remove them all because of YOUR interpretation of the Constitution. If there was a statue of Budda - I wouldn't care, just like I wouldn't care if there was a different monument on gov't property. BTW - you seem to be selectively reading that summary. I've read that many times and it means jack squat because it is just opinions and not law. It will be interesting to see how the USSC will address this issue. Hopefully it will ONLY use the Constitution as their guide unlike some of their recent rulings.

Your defense of Moore indicates your support of Christianity to be endorsed by government above all other religions. I don't see any statues or monuments representing other religions in the judicial building rotunda. Do you? And this has nothing to do with MY interpretation of the Constitution, but it has every bit to do with the long-standing interpretation by the USSC and lesser courts that mandate government neutrality when it comes to religion.

A federal court order isn't a law and it can be challenged and appealed. I don't think he is setting a good example by refusing to comply but then again I don't think the court set a good example of following the law either. Both are wrong and one will be vindicated.

He sneaked the monument into the rotunda in the middle of the night. He has cost the state taxpayers of Alabama in excess of $1 Million dollars defending it. And now, he has the gall to disobey a federal court order mandating that the monument be removed or the state will be found in contempt and fined $5,000 per day. Wow, but that's OK with you Cad. I'll remember that next time there's an issue where someone is disobeying court orders or selectively following certain laws because they don't believe in them. Unfortunately for you Cad, we live in a country ruled by law. Judges especially, have a duty to uphold the law. It's beyond unethical for Moore to do what he's doing.

How so? I don't know where you get off saying that Christians feel they are above the law. I think you are not understanding that there is a difference between Man's law and God's law. God's law is greater than man's, but God also said that we need to follow those laws which are set forth by man unless they are in direct violation of God's law.

Well, apparantly one Christian (i.e. Moore) feels that he's above the law. I'm not sure what your point is since we're not discussing God's law and this forum is not an opportunity for you to proselytize (again). In case you've forgotten, we don't live in a theocracy Cad, we live in a democracy. If you want to live by religious law so badly, I hear Iran has something along those lines going on. Why don't you check it out? 😉

The question remains - how does a monument equate to stiffling a person's right to freedom of religion? It doesn't - end of story.

It's not. By insisting that this case is about things that it's not, you only serve to distract from the issue at hand. As usual. The monument represents government endorsement of a particular religion. Government endorsement of a particular religion to the exclusion of other religions (i.e. one above another) is unconstitutional. The USSC and many other courts have a long case history of decisions on cases just like this one.

Yep - there goes DealMonkey telling people how they feel and think again. Do you understand what wrong, wrong, wrong means? It means that what you thought I thought or want was wrong - what makes you think that you are right this time when your spew hasn't changed.
The issue IS ABOUT A MONUMENT which is spiritual in nature. IT DOES NOT mean that it is the only or should be the only in terms of gov't "promotion". You fail to realize that even though it may be the only one currently it does not mean that other's can't be displayed.

Keep on keeping on DealMonkey, your bigotry is showing.🙂

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYYep - there goes DealMonkey telling people how they feel and think again. Do you understand what wrong, wrong, wrong means? It means that what you thought I thought or want was wrong - what makes you think that you are right this time when your spew hasn't changed.
The issue IS ABOUT A MONUMENT which is spiritual in nature. IT DOES NOT mean that it is the only or should be the only in terms of gov't "promotion". You fail to realize that even though it may be the only one currently it does not mean that other's can't be displayed.

Keep on keeping on DealMonkey, your bigotry is showing.🙂

CkG

I'm only pointing out the facts. It's not my fault you chose to defend Moore. Personally, I don't think you understand the issue. Or if you do, it's only from your religious point of view.

 

[LunarRay]

Given that the religious concept suggests the God made man in his image. This then means that any art form that contains a man is by the aforementioned is a picture of an image of God and ought not be displayed.. Additionally, any man in any federal building etc.. should be replaced by woman... who it can be argued is but a creation from a rib and not the image of God..
Religion is internal not external... God made trees (my view) and are they outlawed too?

 

[mastertech01]

How is it that many of you declare that the display of the 10 commandments is advocating Christianity? The Ten Commandments were the Laws of God, written by the finger of God on stone tablets to the people of Isreal. It is the foundation of the Law of Moses.

Jesus fulfilled the Law and we who believe are not bound by the Law of Moses, but by faith in He who died for our sins, and through him are saved and His word. This is not correct to state that the 10 commandments are a Christian faith symbol, even if christians study the judeao christian relationship and even though many accept the Law of God as pertaining to thier daily lives. That is a personal choice, but not a qualifier to be a Christian.

Matthew 22:35
35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him (Jesus) a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The Ten Commandments in this case are a display of Exactly what the Judge stated. They are the basis for which our laws were established, not only here but in many of the great civilizations of the world at one time or another. It is clear to me that many of the people who oppose the monument are not against it or its words, nearly so much as thier simple hatred of Christianity, and look for any opportunity to crush it, even if it is indirectly related to the subject.

 

[LunarRay]

I think we need one of those ammendments here allowing the display of what the majority of this nation hold dear. If one has no religious connection I fail to see the connection between the BofR and the display. Heck even at the federal cemetary are crosses and stars of david on the markers ... is this an illegal display too?

 

[Kaiynne]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think we need one of those ammendments here allowing the display of what the majority of this nation hold dear. If one has no religious connection I fail to see the connection between the BofR and the display. Heck even at the federal cemetary are crosses and stars of david on the markers ... is this an illegal display too?

We most certainly do not need any such thing. You still fail to see that the federal government is not meant to infringe on any religion, and by advocating one over another, ie displaying a book with god told you to do these things, you are also not advocating other religions or non religion. It is this lack of equal treatment which is the problem. If you are going to do it for one group you must do it for all groups equally, or you will be biased. Now it is obviously not viable to have a monument to every religion ever concieved so the only course of action is to have no monuments to religion whatsoever, however, this too has its problems so you have to just deal with the most flagrant ones as they arise, and this is nothing if not flagrant.

If someone can refute the above argument, and the above argument alone, i will be more thna happy to accept it. Until then i will hold that the monument must go, as i imagine the supreme court will also.

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Given that the religious concept suggests the God made man in his image. This then means that any art form that contains a man is by the aforementioned is a picture of an image of God and ought not be displayed.. Additionally, any man in any federal building etc.. should be replaced by woman... who it can be argued is but a creation from a rib and not the image of God..
Religion is internal not external... God made trees (my view) and are they outlawed too?

WOW!!! Your arguments ARE SO clarifying and your wisdom is OBVIOUSLY infinitely greater than any others!

NOT! Since "GOD made man", from now on, I decree, no "man" is allowed on any federal property. As a matter of fact, since "GOD made the heavens and the earth", that is also no longer allowed on federal property. Oh, wait a minute, didnt GOD say, "let there be light"? Hmmm, from now on, light is forbidden in any federal buildings or property.

Religion really is a crutch for the weak minded.

 

[tm37]

OK I say lets do away with ALL references to religion in the government.

First lets do away with In God we trust on the money but lets not stop there.

Christmas should no longer be a FEDERAL Holiday. After all chistmas celebrates the birth of crist and well that would definately violate that seperation of church and state. By giving everyone christmas off we are violating someones right would normally be able to conduct his or her bussiness with the federal, or state government for that matter, on december 25.

Also we shouldn't have ANY government santioned marriages. Marriage was a union between a man and woman "in the eyes of god" long before our little country was ever concieved therefore it also violates the establishment clause.

Oh and arlington nation cemetary. Have you seen that. There must be thousands of little crosses all placed in the ground WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS. Obviouly this is a clear violation. I meen come on they are all there for anyone to see. Crosses paid for by Mr. Taxpayer on GOVERNMENT LAND no less.

Nest the military needs to get rid of all chaplins and spiritual advisors to our troops. Now I know some of our brave may think that they need a priest to talk to everyonce in a while But come on. A preist on the government payroll. Well that MUST CLEARLY violate the first amendment.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: tm37
OK I say lets do away with ALL references to religion in the government.

First lets do away with In God we trust on the money but lets not stop there.

I agree Lets do away with it, stupid anti-communist propaganda on the money supply anyway.

Christmas should no longer be a FEDERAL Holiday. After all chistmas celebrates the birth of crist and well that would definately violate that seperation of church and state. By giving everyone christmas off we are violating someones right would normally be able to conduct his or her bussiness with the federal, or state government for that matter, on december 25.

Christmas has almost nothing to do with "crist". Christmas is the Roman Holiday of Saturnalia with a bunch of Celtic traditions thrown on top. It is first and foremost a celebration of the winter solstice. The holiday exists and is called Christmas because in trying to convert the "Pagans" the christians couldn't take away the biggest holiday of the year. I think we should do away with Christmas. But we should do away with the "christ" portion of it and return the holiday to it's true origins a celebration of the Solstice.

Also we shouldn't have ANY government santioned marriages. Marriage was a union between a man and woman "in the eyes of god" long before our little country was ever concieved therefore it also violates the establishment clause.

The concept of Marriage existed long before Christianity. The "Pagan" tribes of europe engaged in hand-fasting cermonies and the practice predates even that. Pair bonding is a crucial aspect of Human survival and has existed long before the formal name of marriage existed.

Oh and arlington nation cemetary. Have you seen that. There must be thousands of little crosses all placed in the ground WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS. Obviouly this is a clear violation. I meen come on they are all there for anyone to see. Crosses paid for by Mr. Taxpayer on GOVERNMENT LAND no less.

Our war dead are entitled to any monument they desire, maybe you didn't notice last time you were to Arlington but the Jews of the cemetary have stars of david marking their graves. As long as people are allowed to choose and all faiths are allowed to be represented then it's not illegal.

Nest the military needs to get rid of all chaplins and spiritual advisors to our troops. Now I know some of our brave may think that they need a priest to talk to everyonce in a while But come on. A preist on the government payroll. Well that MUST CLEARLY violate the first amendment.

Again, our troops are entitled to spirital comfort whatever their faith maybe as long as there isn't any discrimination this doesn't violate the law.

I applaud your effort, we should do more to eliminate the heavy handed influence and proseltation of our society by Christianity.

 

[shuan24]

Update

Thompson has said he may fine the state about $5,000 a day if the monument is not removed by the end of the day Wednesday. He has said it would be permissible for the monument to be moved to a less public site, such as Moore's office.

Less public site?? Thats ridiculus. No way in hell should the people have to compromise with this monk-judge.

 

[DealMonkey]

I'd be very surprised if the Supreme Court knocks down the lower court's ruling. In fact, the SC may not even hear the appeal. It's such a blatent disregard for the U.S. Constitution. If Moore was anything but a complete religious zealot with total disregard for our country's laws he would have just put the statue in his office to begin with.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'd be very surprised if the Supreme Court knocks down the lower court's ruling. In fact, the SC may not even hear the appeal. It's such a blatent disregard for the U.S. Constitution. If Moore was anything but a complete religious zealot with total disregard for our country's laws he would have just put the statue in his office to begin with.

Disregard for the constitution.

What part of the constitution dod he disregard.

Amendment I

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.

congress shall make now law respecting an establishment of religion.

Two big problems with them asking him to take down this is legally there can be NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion. Therefor I say that the federal government hasd no place in determaining what hangs in a STATE courthouse.

Also he is not in congress and he hasn't made a law regarding it. Judges do not MAKE LAW the INTERPERATE AND ENFORCE law. ALthough many have tried and sadly suceeded in judical activism it does not make it right.

and my favorite the least popular law of all time the forgotten amendment

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The first amendment restricts congress who didn't have much say in this matter, and it does not prohibit the states from doing as they please. the tenth amendmant is supposed to slow the feds down. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution Basically anything that the constitution does not give the fedral government the power to regulate is given to the state. Of course this would fall under educating our children and giving them free food and health care, is reserved to the states. People tend to firget that the federal government was set up to be a very limited government and the only time most people get upset is when they write laws that make it a crime to steal music or have you pay more for your college education.

NOw if this judge is using the ten comandments as law then he should be removed under whatever judical reveiw that the state has in place. But not for standing up to the feds and asking them to stand by ALL of the constitution instead of bits and peoces as they fit./

 

[no0b]

*shrugs*

 

[DealMonkey]

DENIED!

Judge Moore's last-minute appeal to the Supreme Court has been denied. Still, he refuses to abide by federal court orders to remove his religious monument. Who will stop this religious zealot from pushing his ideology on everyone who enters the state judicial building? Currently, the legal tab for the defense of the monument tops $1 Million. He could also cause the state $5,000/day until he removes it. How much more damage will he cause the people of Alabama?

Alabama judge defies Supreme Court

Justice vows to keep monument to biblical law despite losing 11th-hour appeal

MONTGOMERY, Ala., Aug. 20 ? An Alabama judge vowed Wednesday to keep a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on display in a state judicial building despite losing a last-minute appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of an order for its removal.

?THE U.S. SUPREME Court?s denial of a stay today will not deter me from continuing to fight for the right of our state to acknowledge God as the moral foundation of our law,? state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore said in a statement read by his spokesman hours before the midnight Wednesday deadline to remove the monument.

Moore?s statement, read to reporters outside after the court building closed, said he would ask the U.S. high court ?for an appeal on the merits? in the case.

?I expect that the court will vindicate the rule of law regarding the acknowledgment of God in our state,? it added.

Tom Parker, Moore?s spokesman, said Alabama?s top judge had ?no intention? of removing the monument and that it would be guarded by security personnel Thursday.

Earlier Wednesday, the nation?s highest court turned down Moore?s request for a last-minute stay blocking a lower court order to remove the monument. It offered no comment or recorded dissent in its one-line order.

Moore, the elected chief justice of Alabama?s highest court, has fought since 2001 to keep the biblical display in the state judicial building in Montgomery, Alabama?s capital, saying he regards the Commandments as a symbol of the Judeo-Christian foundation of U.S. law.

 

[rahvin]

Well looks like his little run of Proseletation of the "heathan" masses is about to run out. The other justices of the state supreme court overruled him today and ordered the monument removed stating they are obligated to uphold the law even if they don't agree with it. The Federal Judge has stated he's going to order Moore in contempt of court, which he is. Good to see the that things are following the correct path and he's about to get the slap down of his life.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'd be very surprised if the Supreme Court knocks down the lower court's ruling. In fact, the SC may not even hear the appeal. It's such a blatent disregard for the U.S. Constitution. If Moore was anything but a complete religious zealot with total disregard for our country's laws he would have just put the statue in his office to begin with.

Disregard for the constitution.

What part of the constitution dod he disregard.

Amendment I

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.

congress shall make now law respecting an establishment of religion.

Two big problems with them asking him to take down this is legally there can be NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion. Therefor I say that the federal government hasd no place in determaining what hangs in a STATE courthouse.

Also he is not in congress and he hasn't made a law regarding it. Judges do not MAKE LAW the INTERPERATE AND ENFORCE law. ALthough many have tried and sadly suceeded in judical activism it does not make it right.

and my favorite the least popular law of all time the forgotten amendment

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The first amendment restricts congress who didn't have much say in this matter, and it does not prohibit the states from doing as they please. the tenth amendmant is supposed to slow the feds down. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution Basically anything that the constitution does not give the fedral government the power to regulate is given to the state. Of course this would fall under educating our children and giving them free food and health care, is reserved to the states. People tend to firget that the federal government was set up to be a very limited government and the only time most people get upset is when they write laws that make it a crime to steal music or have you pay more for your college education.

NOw if this judge is using the ten comandments as law then he should be removed under whatever judical reveiw that the state has in place. But not for standing up to the feds and asking them to stand by ALL of the constitution instead of bits and peoces as they fit./

Good points. I think SC has ruled promoting religion at the goverrment level is the same as establishing it. Once again ativist courts who loves to wildly interpret the language of the const to feel they have "done" something.

 

[DealMonkey]

Activist courts? Hardly. The USSC has decided cases like this one starting in 1948. I'd hardly call the USSC "activist" - I'd call them "conservative" by 5-4. But fortunately for us, it's not left to tm37 or whatever his name is to interpret constitutional law. Here's something to read:

The First Amendment
Amendment I of the United States Constitution, often referred to as the "Establishment Clause?, states: "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 Wall of Separation
"Once the government becomes involved with religion and acquires the power to promote religious beliefs, it also acquires the power to supress them. The way to ensure religious freedom [for the creators of the Bill of Rights] was to separate church and state so government could not interfere with religious views and practices." (ACLU, Briefing Paper #3). Thomas Jefferson referred to this practice as the creation of a "wall of separation between chuch and state," and the U.S. Supreme Court has set up these guidelines towards the fulfullment of this practice (Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

Neither state or local government:

- Can set up a church
- Can pass laws that aid one religion, all religions, or favor one religion over another
- Can force a person to attend or stay away from church, or believe in any religion
- Cannot punish a person for holding or professing religious beliefs
- Cannot levy a tax, in any amount, to support any religious activities or institutions.
- Can openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organization, or vice-versa.


The Lemon Test
To assist both themselves and the lower courts on decisions in these matters, it must first be determined if the act of the governmental body (whether law or conduct) can and should be considered as a violation of the establishment clause, and the three part test for this is taken from the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

- whether it has a secular purpose
- whether it has as its primary or principle effect advancing or inhibiting religion, and
- whether it fosters an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

This test has not proved to be easy to apply, and has allowed decisions of all kinds by the lower courts, as it is possible to make a contrary decision on the same set of circumstances with a different panel of judges, according to Stephen Carter, Professor of Law at Yale University, in his book Culture of Disbelief. . Sandra Day O?Connor, in her partial concurrence in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 688 (1984), proposes the court also question whether the government is, by their law or conduct, endorsing or disapproving of religion and/or religious belief. (Gaustad?s Church and State in America contains a portion of her opinion that includes these comments).

The only reason you don't like it (Zebo and tm37 or whomever else) is because you're probably Christian and you don't see a problem with a 2-ton monument to Christian beliefs being placed in a state building. If the judge was the "Hari Krishna" judge instead and had a two-ton monument of Ganesha (a Hindu god that looks like a elephant) wrapped in snakes with a dancing Shiva wreathed in flames, you'd most likely have a problem with it. And, of course, the USSC would too - considering one religion is being promoted in a state building over all other religions.

 

[Linflas]

A small point of order here. The 10 commandments are not solely a Christian belief. They are also part of Judaism and Islam.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Activist courts? Hardly. The USSC has decided cases like this one starting in 1948. I'd hardly call the USSC "activist" - I'd call them "conservative" by 5-4. But fortunately for us, it's not left to tm37 or whatever his name is to interpret constitutional law. Here's something to read:

The First Amendment
Amendment I of the United States Constitution, often referred to as the "Establishment Clause?, states: "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 Wall of Separation
"Once the government becomes involved with religion and acquires the power to promote religious beliefs, it also acquires the power to supress them. The way to ensure religious freedom [for the creators of the Bill of Rights] was to separate church and state so government could not interfere with religious views and practices." (ACLU, Briefing Paper #3). Thomas Jefferson referred to this practice as the creation of a "wall of separation between chuch and state," and the U.S. Supreme Court has set up these guidelines towards the fulfullment of this practice (Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

Neither state or local government:

- Can set up a church
- Can pass laws that aid one religion, all religions, or favor one religion over another
- Can force a person to attend or stay away from church, or believe in any religion
- Cannot punish a person for holding or professing religious beliefs
- Cannot levy a tax, in any amount, to support any religious activities or institutions.
- Can openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organization, or vice-versa.


The Lemon Test
To assist both themselves and the lower courts on decisions in these matters, it must first be determined if the act of the governmental body (whether law or conduct) can and should be considered as a violation of the establishment clause, and the three part test for this is taken from the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

- whether it has a secular purpose
- whether it has as its primary or principle effect advancing or inhibiting religion, and
- whether it fosters an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

This test has not proved to be easy to apply, and has allowed decisions of all kinds by the lower courts, as it is possible to make a contrary decision on the same set of circumstances with a different panel of judges, according to Stephen Carter, Professor of Law at Yale University, in his book Culture of Disbelief. . Sandra Day O?Connor, in her partial concurrence in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 688 (1984), proposes the court also question whether the government is, by their law or conduct, endorsing or disapproving of religion and/or religious belief. (Gaustad?s Church and State in America contains a portion of her opinion that includes these comments).

The only reason you don't like it (Zebo and tm37 or whomever else) is because you're probably Christian and you don't see a problem with a 2-ton monument to Christian beliefs being placed in a state building. If the judge was the "Hari Krishna" judge instead and had a two-ton monument of Ganesha (a Hindu god that looks like a elephant) wrapped in snakes with a dancing Shiva wreathed in flames, you'd most likely have a problem with it. And, of course, the USSC would too - considering one religion is being promoted in a state building over all other religions.

Actually I would'nt care because I understand th difference between "establishing" a religion and "promoting" one. Establishing seems to me to have an exclusivity fator, whereby, the offical says you must belong to this sect to get special favors or treatment and all others are unwelcome or even illegal like in England and other european counties at one time. Promoting is simply one mans or the communities cultural views of thier religion they which to impart to others in a passive way.

Big difference IMO.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey. And, of course, the USSC would too - considering one religion is being promoted in a state building over all other religions.

Or NO religion. Atheism has equal rights.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: DealMonkey. And, of course, the USSC would too - considering one religion is being promoted in a state building over all other religions.

Or NO religion. Atheism has equal rights.

Atheism is not a religion, it's the very definition of lack of religion. I know some people are so vehement in their atheism that it borders on "religion." No religion would be considered neutrality and that is what the state is supposed to strive for. Not to promote on religion over others, thereby "establishing" religion, or at least religious-preference.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Linflas
A small point of order here. The 10 commandments are not solely a Christian belief. They are also part of Judaism and Islam.

Sorry, I should have said Judao-Christian. My bad.

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Linflas
A small point of order here. The 10 commandments are not solely a Christian belief. They are also part of Judaism and Islam.

Sorry, I should have said Judao-Christian. My bad.

Actually, there were 15 commandments, but Moses broke the tablet listing the 11th-15th commandments, so it went down in history as only 10.

Just a small point.

 

[oreagan]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
It's odd... I didn't see anyone here complaining when the Army Corps approved a Muslim youth camp in Iowa on federal land(http://www.naplesnews.com/03/07/neapolitan/d950902a.htm).

But I forgot... separation of church and state means the separation of Christianity from state. How silly of me.

Which is a problem, since those danged Zoroastrians keep taking over the government!