White House Plugs 10 Commandments Displays

[Gaard]

WASHINGTON Dec 8, 2004 ? The Bush administration on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to allow Ten Commandments displays on government property, adding a federal view on a major church-state case that justices will deal with early next year.

The government has weighed in before in religion cases at the high court, including one earlier this year that challenged the words "under God" in the classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The government supported a California school district in that case. Now, it is backing two Kentucky counties that had framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued McCreary and Pulaski counties, claiming the displays were an unconstitutional promotion of religion. The group won.

Justices will hear arguments, probably in February, in the counties' appeal and in a second case involving a Texas homeless man who wants a 6-foot granite monument removed from the state Capitol grounds.

The administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, Paul Clement, told justices in Wednesday's filing that Ten Commandments displays are common around the nation and in the court's own building, the Capitol and national monuments.

"Reproductions and representations of the Ten Commandments have been commonly employed across the country to symbolize both the rule of law itself, as well as the role of religion in the development of American law," Clement wrote.

Clement said the displays are important in educating people "about the nation's history and celebrating its heritage."

The Supreme Court banned the posting of Ten Commandments in public schools in 1980.

Clement argued that courthouses are different from schools and often have "historic symbols of law."

Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor and former legal counsel to President Reagan and the first President Bush, said that the government had been expected to file arguments in the case. "It would have been politically untenable and legally timid if the government's chief court litigator had not done so," he said.

The case is McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693

link

 

[Rainsford]

You know what, I would have no problem with this whole thing if it wasn't for the fact that everyone (on BOTH sides) turns this into a religion debate. The anti-display people want to get rid of all religious anything in any public place, and the pro-display people want to remind us all that we'd all be murderous barbarians without religion (apparently). Instead of treating the 10 Commandments like a historical symbol of law, as Clement suggests, we're essentially arguing about religion's place in government, something that should have already been established.

I think it's a waste of the ACLU's time, personally. There are far more important things they could be doing, I think, than trying to totally remove religious anything from government. And I say that as a non-Christian. But that aside, if the pro-display people would stop treating this like an attack on their right to believe what they want or an attempt by devil worshipers to move the US into anarchy, I think we'd be able to reach a compromise.

Also, I question the motives of the White House in supporting this. Do they support displaying the 10 Commandments for the (rather reasonable, IMHO) reasons stated or just because Bush is devoutly Christian?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Not a law

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Not a law

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
Not a law

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Not a law

V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
Not a law

VI. Thou shalt not kill.
Is a law (1)

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Not a law (?)

VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
Is a law (1)

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
In court and to law officers yes, otherwise, not really (half point)

X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Not a law

That's 2.5 - 3.5 out of 10.

 

[Tab]

In all honesty, I really don't care. If they start making new goverment building with religious artwork and the such then I do care.

 

[alzan]

It just seems like political pandering to me. The religious right are claiming that they re-elected Dubya, and Dubya is showing his support for their (and his) beliefs.
I prefer to look at such displays (10 commandments, et al) as an acknowledgement by some of the religious right that their faith is so weak that they need to be reminded of it's basic tenets constantly. I mean, I know the 10 C's by heart and I can in no way be called Christian or religious.

alzan

 

[DealMonkey]

Oh man, this must be the political quid pro quo for the evangelist vote! I can't wait 'til they outlaw homosexuals and pull birth control off the shelves of our nation's pharmacies! Oh goody!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
In all honesty, I really don't care. If they start making new goverment building with religious artwork and the such then I do care.

I'm not sure I can respect your apathy.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Not a law

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Not a law

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
Not a law

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Not a law

V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
Not a law

VI. Thou shalt not kill.
Is a law (1)

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Not a law (?)

VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
Is a law (1)

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
In court and to law officers yes, otherwise, not really (half point)

X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Not a law

That's 2.5 - 3.5 out of 10.

Sounds logical to me. Thus they really have no basis to argue that the 10 commandments are a historic symbol of law.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
That's 2.5 - 3.5 out of 10.

I do believe that's a big red "F" even with some of those around here depressing the curve.

 

[her209]

I've always wondered why the founding fathers never built a giant Jesus statue in Philadelphia/DC.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: her209
I've always wondered why the founding fathers never built a giant Jesus statue in Philadelphia/DC.

Because this country was founded on freedom from religious persecution and segregation. They knew what they were doing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Republicans need to be reminded everyday and everywhere otherwise they will forget their religion:

3-2-2004 Commandments Debate Prompts Demonstrations

WASHINGTON - Shouts of "Amen" and a response of "hypocrites" pierced the chill air Wednesday as demonstrators protested in front of the Supreme Court while inside justices considered cases involving displays of the Ten Commandments on government property.

Christan Stapleton, 13, of Newland, N.C. carried a homemade, cardboard Ten Commandments tablet. She came to the Supreme Court with her church and family members.

"We do need them in our school," she said, "to help us know what to do, what God wants us to do as we go through our day."

 

[conjur]

Still confused why Christians are concerned with Mosaic law and not the Beattitudes. Freakin' morons. Don't even know what they're supposed to be worshipping.

BTW, since the 10 Commandments has as one of them Thou shalt have no other gods before me, I think it's safe to say that's an establishment of religion.

 

[bamacre]

I personally think our gov't, nor any gov't, isn't worthy to display the 10 Commandments. I am a firm believer in keeping government and religion separate. Although in this case, I'm not sure why the 10 Commandments are solely associated with Christianity. That man who came down the mountain was a Jew. Would things be different if the judge displaying the 10 C's was Jewish?

Fear is the reason we even debate this. Those of faith fear the country being ruled and inhabited by atheists, and those on the other side fear our country being ruled by a theocracy. Fear has corrupted our decision making, that's for sure. It's fear that has our dads, brothers, and sons in Iraq. It is fear that has kept Iraqi's from overthrowing Saddam themselves. Maybe that's why God said the only one you should fear is Him.

 

[Harvey]

Too bad the admin can't remember the ones about not killing and bearing false witness.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: conjur
Still confused why Christians are concerned with Mosaic law and not the Beattitudes. Freakin' morons. Don't even know what they're supposed to be worshipping.

I share your confusion.

Beattitudes > 10 Commandments

 

[TheBDB]

What is sad is I am atheist and I would have no problem with the 10 Commandments diplayed on government buildings, but I can't support it because the INTENT of these people is to promote christianity and their values.

 

[Genx87]

This might be in response to the ruling they made yesterday concerning minor executions. They were actually using world opinion and precedent to rule on a law in our country.

It has many people a little pissed and calling on the administration to send a signal to the supreme court.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what, I would have no problem with this whole thing if it wasn't for the fact that everyone (on BOTH sides) turns this into a religion debate. The anti-display people want to get rid of all religious anything in any public place, and the pro-display people want to remind us all that we'd all be murderous barbarians without religion (apparently). Instead of treating the 10 Commandments like a historical symbol of law, as Clement suggests, we're essentially arguing about religion's place in government, something that should have already been established.

I think it's a waste of the ACLU's time, personally. There are far more important things they could be doing, I think, than trying to totally remove religious anything from government. And I say that as a non-Christian. But that aside, if the pro-display people would stop treating this like an attack on their right to believe what they want or an attempt by devil worshipers to move the US into anarchy, I think we'd be able to reach a compromise.

Also, I question the motives of the White House in supporting this. Do they support displaying the 10 Commandments for the (rather reasonable, IMHO) reasons stated or just because Bush is devoutly Christian?

Eloquently stated and so true. Yes, I agree there's a whole lot of hyperbole and grandstanding on both sides of the issue. Not only that, we've been over all the specifics a million times before here at P&N. Some of these perennial issues just get beaten like a dead horse around here.

For the White House, I'd venture it's purely political strategery (heh) ... they know where the votes for the GOP are coming from and they've got to do *something* concrete for those supporters. Hell, abortion is still legal and that whole concept of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages is dead on arrival. What else they got?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: conjur

BTW, since the 10 Commandments has as one of them Thou shalt have no other gods before me, I think it's safe to say that's an establishment of religion.

Agreed

 

[EagleKeeper]

The symbol is not an endorsement of a religion, nor is it an establishment of a religion.

The USSC needs to define the difference between the establishment and acknowledgement.

There is no reason that a religious symbol (other than the "christian") should not be able to be displayed.

As long as there is no forcing of a religion by the government and/or favoritism of one over another by the government, then there is no conflict with the establishment of religion within the constitution.

God is a generic term used by multiple religions as an acknolwedgement to a higher being.

To those that profess to be aethist, then as long as they are not forced to partake in a religion, they should be able to allow others to acknowledge one. By forcing the denouncing of a religion, they become as bad as those that attempt to force one on you.

Aethism could be considered to be a religion just as any other type that exists.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The symbol is not an endorsement of a religion, nor is it an establishment of a religion.

The USSC needs to define the difference between the establishment and acknowledgement.

There is no reason that a religious symbol (other than the "christian") should not be able to be displayed.

As long as there is no forcing of a religion by the government and/or favoritism of one over another by the government, then there is no conflict with the establishment of religion within the constitution.

God is a generic term used by multiple religions as an acknolwedgement to a higher being.

To those that profess to be aethist, then as long as they are not forced to partake in a religion, they should be able to allow others to acknowledge one. By forcing the denouncing of a religion, they become as bad as those that attempt to force one on you.

Aethism could be considered to be a religion just as any other type that exists.

Your opinion. Which is fine, but the USSC historically has not agreed with you. The ten commandments is very much a symbol of Judaeo Christian origin. Such a display on government property (i.e. the people's property), especially outside of the context of other religions or perhaps outside the context of historical legal symology or prominent figures, represents an endorsement of Christianity.

The only fair way to allow all religions to prosper in an environement of religious tolerance, is for the government to remain strictly neutral in such matters. Remaining neutral means not favoring one religion over any other. And once you start erecting monuments based on one religion (i.e. in this case, Christianity) you are no longer neutral.

That just seems so obvious and self-evident to me. And to the USSC as well.

 

[Steeplerot]

fine with that idea as long as they have a buddah also....and a mohammad..and a chthulu. sound good? fair and all? *crickets*

 

[Gaard]

Who's forcing the denouncement of a religion?

 

[Steeplerot]

raildogg man-love sig action :laugh:
Maybe someday he can get a man-date with bush alone.
"Hey it's not gay sex if your on top!" -Republican Party of United States of America
/back OT