Separation Of Church And State

“Thomas Paine is my favorite person from that time period..his Age of Reason follows to the letter what i think

Oh the monument has been moved to a storage room of the court house, but the building manager refuses to turn off the storage spaces' lights or cover it. He said he will put it in the dark or lay anything across it..lol”

“This whole issue is basically meaningless.

People arewasting their time on this when there are REAL needs to take care of.”

“Oooooo spoooky.”

“"The opposite is closer to the truth. Jefferson was a "Deist," who wrote his own version of the Bible according to his secular beliefs."

This bible is still given to each new incoming conressman also. There's our worthless trivia for today.

Gotta run! I'm off to see Freddy vs. Jason!”

“will not put it in the dark..


i guess i need to start using matts preview function...or stop being retarded.

Yes you guys check out our upcoming vote on raising taxes...that's been causing alot more actual fistfights around here”

“I wouldn't hardly expect this David Barton to do anything except support Justice Moore.

Obvioulsy, our Founding Fathers intentions can be argued as freely as can the meaning of the Constitution they forged.

I have finally taken time to fully read Judge Carnes decision in this case and I find it to be well reasoned.

Oh, by the way, if I am not mistaken, Ed Carnes was appointed by George Bush in 1992. Without knowing for certain, I would be willing to take a wild uneducated guess that Judge Carnes' belief in God is as firm as is Justice Moore's.

However, his understanding of the Constitution of the United States clearly is clearly superior to that of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.”

“oops. Didn't close the tag”

“How did the monument get there in the first place? Seems that might make a big difference somehow.”

“I guess if I had to offer my own opinion, it would be that this, and 99% of all other matters should be decided at the state level. It should never have been in the federal court system.”

“Absolutely,frig the feds.
In the older court houses in my
state, I can see the 10 commandments hanging on the wall
beside the common wealth seal.
They are too historical to take
down I guess.”

“Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.

Sorry, wrong. Logical fallacy. The second does not follow from the first. Just as freedom of speech does not grant one freedom FROM speech.

And while we're at it, it is the Establishment Clause, not the "separation claus"

OPIE -- you missed the point of my mention of the frieze. Sure it represents the multitude of sources of law. But it's there. Shall we take the wrecking ball to it next?

Chili -- ya gotta read more closely man, you've also missed the point on a couple areas. I well know what is depicted -- funny though how one monument gets singled out among many.

Barton's book is merely a starting point where you can find a collection of references to the founders writings. I suggested it as a starting point so you could do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

For further reading, folks ought to check out Lynch v. Donnelly (1984, US Supreme Court).

It's very clear that Secularism is a religion today, and the most intolerant one out there. Instead of allowing any other religious perspective to be promoted, it instead uses the government to enforce its beliefs.

And Tom said it best: This whole issue is basically meaningless.

A bunch of lawyers with nothing better to do have wasted a lot of people's time and gotten a whole lot of folks riled up. Think of the good they could have accomplished if they'd instead spent their efforts helping out at a soup kitchen or somesuch?”

“What I want to know is...
"How did the monument get there in the first place? Seems that might make a big difference somehow."

switchback
02:16:34 PM

He snuck it in in the middle of the night.....not like he was sneaking about or anything like that, huh.”

“No. (soon to be former?) Justice Moore has wasted a lot of people's time in order to further his career. I'm so glad we don't elect our judiciary in this state.”

“I guess that I'm entering this fray a little late. I am not a particularly religious person but I think this is much ado about nothing. I don't see where a display of the Ten Commandments in and of itself is a Constitutional violation. The Ten Commandments appear in the Bible, the Torah and to some extent in the Koran. Whose religion is being established as a State religion??? Our money is inscribed with "In God we trust". Why is nobody b!tching about that (there are many other such examples)?”

“Deeddawg, I think is you that could be missing the key point. No-one is saying that religion can't be promoted, just that there is a time and a place for it and that the courthouse is not it.
And please explain to me how "secularlism is a religion and the most intollerant one out there." ?”

“the issue may come down to the 1)intent of the party wishing to display a religious monument or symbol, 2) whether there are other, more appropriate forums for such expression, and 3)whether other religions and faiths are given equal access to display their monuments or symbols.”

“deeddawg..i understood your point..and you don't seem to have a problem with the other historical figures on the Frieze, right. Well Moore does. Moore refused to allow the BILL of Rights, MLKII's I have a dream speach, and other like displays to be presented along with the Ten Commandments, so he was basically only allowing ONE VIEW. He did later put up a portion of MLK's jailhouse speech that talks about God's right, and an old display of the BOR he found in storage, both tucked away in obscure locations”

“and you guys might want to read the other post in this thread..we are starting to REPEAT alot of simple statements about this.”

“In Lynch v. Donnelly, I think Chief Justice Burger made an excellent point.

"The Court has invalidated legislation or governmental action on the ground that a secular purpose was lacking, but only when it has concluded there was no question that the statute or activity was motivated wholly by religious considerations."

Given Justice Moore's testimony, infra, I don't think there is any doubt his actions were motivated by religious considerations.”

“ynamiynami -- you'd do best to Google secularism as a religion -- there are many far better writers than myself, and you will be able to draw your own conclusions.

Does my statement apply to all those who consider themselves secularists? Hardly. Yet it is obvious that there are plenty of "Secularist" zealots out to quash ANY sort of religious expression through the misappropriation of the Establishment Clause.”

“Newspeak. Secular means not religious.

This is another example of a silly attempt to justify religious dogma through flawed logic.”

“There being lots written about it doesn't actually make you point any more valid though.

So what you're saying that actively promoting the dominant form of religion should be allowed in any place at any time.
How about Islamic fundamentalism in a country such as Iraq. Surely there the way forward is to try and create a legislature, executive and judiciary independent of the different branches of Islam that exist in the country.
Sure religion will be a factor in the type of country that emerges, as has happened in America - but isn't it preferable to minimize it's influence rather than seeking to maximize it.”

“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.



- If it is so simple, so clear, why does this thread have over 100 posts with different opinions?

I do not see how the above ammendment translates clearly into "seperation of Church and State".

See, I'm confused. Not so clear here.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, (what does this mean really? Goevrnment can not tell a religion what it can or can not do?) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; (I can say and write what I want free from government persecution or dictate) or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, (government can not stop me and my fellows from gathering in non violent manner, nor can government harrasse me and my fellows while we do so and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (and that if I don't like something I can ask the government to make change(s)


So anyone else care to interpret? Let's see just how cut and dry the issue is?”

“Twinks, a civics class might be in order, followed by an understanding of western civ 101.”

“Twinks, I think the statement means that the gov't cannot make any laws that dictate when, how, why, where any specific religion is to be set up for any sect of the population. It means that the gov't cannot intercede in any processes involved in running, if you will, any particular sect or religion. To me, that clearly separates the law from any religious activity...


Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it”

“It's saying that you are free to practice whatever religion you deem fit (with law breaking notwithstanding), but the goveernment cannot compel anyone to be part of it or practice it”

“Twinkle Toes.

Start with Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution was being interpreted at a very tender age.”

“Please interpret for me then Phaedrus.

Seems people are more intent in being condescending to me on this issue than answering my honest question...or alleviating my confusion.

What I'm getting at is I don't see where in this ammendment it says or even alludes to something like it's unconstitutional for a government building to have any religious decoration.”

“It's an extension of what I said, Twinks. The 'government' also includes the property they operate on and anything connected...”

“hmmmm...thank you Treebeard

Any others?”

“I am a Christian. Maybe not a real devout one by some folks standards. It doesn't bother me that the ten commandments statue was removed from their place. For a person who truly believes in separation of church and state... it should be pretty cut and dry. I would have had an issue with a copy of the Book of Shadows or some representation of what *I* consider a pagan manuscript sitting up in that building. How can I be sure that a fellow human being in that area wouldn't have issue with a represetntation of a Christian icon in that spot of honor? The answer is.. I can't. It isn't church. It had no place being there to start with. Further more.... you can't *really* separate church and state at the level of the privacy of the human heart and mind. If those folks are such devout Christians.. then as long as they continue to walk the walk... there should be no difference once that monument is removed.”

“In a nutshell

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

No religion shall be recognized above others by law.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Where part one is not impacted by free exercise thereof - for instance, a lawmaker can't claim that he is expressing his religion by making a law saying that everyone has to be -filintheblank-.

This is very basic stuff, and fundamental to our nations bill of rights.”

“What I'm getting at is I don't see where in this ammendment it says or even alludes to something like it's unconstitutional for a government building to have any religious decoration."
Twinkle Toes
03:43:11 PM
08/28/03

Twinkle Toes, it doesn't. And moreover, the High Court has never ruled that it did.

What you are missing is that Courts have interpreted the meaning and scope of that Amendment through a long list of Court Cases.

I think if you read the opinion of the 11th circuit in the case of Glassroth v. Moore, (the case that is the subject of this thread), you will develop a general understanding of the of the Establishment Clause.

The Supreme Court of the Unites States took the position in 1803 that it alone would determine the meaning of the Constitution. IMHO, it would be impossible to fully understand the scope and impact of any of the Amendments without a general review of the Supreme Court's interpretation.”

“The part that kills me about this, is that Moore knows EXACTLY what he's doing and is doing it despite his study of the constitution and his supposed pledge to protect said constitution.

How many non-christians were treated fairly in his courtroom over the years, do you think?”

“newspeak. Secular means not religious.

I expect better from you Phaedrus. First, the word I used was "secularism". Look it up. Try Merriam-Webster or American Heritage.

AH: "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations"
MW: "The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education"

This is another example of a silly attempt to justify religious dogma through flawed logic.

Ah yes, the usual ad hominem attack when you can't make a logical case.


There being lots written about it doesn't actually make you point any more valid though.

ynamiynami, which part of "draw your own conclusions" did I not make clear? I really don't give a flip if you or anyone else agrees with that statement -- you were curious so I suggested your best path to learn more about it.

So what you're saying that actively promoting the dominant form of religion should be allowed in any place at any time.

Hardly. I disagree with what some folks today think the Establishment Clause says. I think people should be able to express their religious believes when and where it is not disruptive, and folks not holding those beliefs can sit back and be amused at the "quaint customs". I've been exposed to all sorts of different religions -- and while I may not think they're correct, I fully support the right of their practitioners to practice them in front of me. THAT is tolerance. Something sorely lacking among many folks.”

“Geez - forgive me for questioning.”

“But a courthouse is disruptive and not the appropriate place.

And if you're going to make sweeping generalizations with little to substantiate them, then maybe your views need a little more to validation than a "Google search".

Specifically what appears to be your claim that those without belief are intollerant and seeking to oppress those who follow a religion ... lets talk details here.

Did I not make any part of this clear?

Or maybe I should make some ill-considered viewpoint known and then try to sweep other people's views aside rather than seeking to answer any questions it may raise.”

“If he smuggled it in the the middle of the night...shouldn't it have been removed the following day as a form of "rogue art" or something? Isn't the point that it needs to be removed because nobody authorized it to be placed there? Do judges have that much authority over the foyer of buildings they preside in?

I just don't see it as a religious issue at all. Somebody put something there that didn't belong, (no matter what it was), it should have been removed immediately. People, including the judge, that want to make it into a religious issue are missing the point entirely. The judge should be removed from the bench for wasting taxpayers money for his own gain. Also he should be fined for the cost of the removal.

BTW, I am a christian and this is how I believe. Does that make me wrong?”

“Isn't the point that it needs to be removed because nobody authorized it to be placed there?

True.”

“Deed - "secularism AS RELIGION" is newspeak, and if you'd care to read up on it, as you've suggested we do, and give it a critical thinking-through, I think you'd agree that it is flawed logic, and an apparent attempt to give secularist priorities a religious appearance to weaken the position.

There was nothing ad hom about it. You're a jerk. There's an ad hom for ya. :)”

“According to the facts as stated in the opinion:

A. Justice Moore had the authority to decorate the rotunda (the manner of decoratation however, was the subject of the lawsuit)

B. No taxpayer monies were used. A religious group paid for it, had it installed, and used the money for Justice Moore's defense.

(Can we say Grandstanding?)”

“Who paid for the removal?”

“Ok.
Grandstanding.”

“How does one go about obtaining permission to decorate a rotunda? Is there a permit, application or something like that? Or is it just going to the building manager and saying "Hey, can I bring something in to spruce the place up a bit?...Great thanks!"”

“switchback, apparently, in Alabama, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the decision maker.”

“But a courthouse is disruptive and not the appropriate place.

For a fire-and-brimstone preacher, sure. What is disruptive about a block of stone or a plaque on a wall or some other inanimate object? How does such a thing, simply by its existance, disrupt anything?

Specifically what appears to be your claim that those without belief are intollerant and seeking to oppress those who follow a religion ... lets talk details here.

Look around you. I'm surprised you even have to ASK this question. Look at wholesale misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause. Look at the false claims, even made here, that such guarantees freedom FROM religion. The inability for people to pray out loud prior to a school event. The anti-Christian persecution which occurs even here.

Instead of practicing tolerance of religious points of views, more and more often anti-religion folks work to get any expression of religion banned. The fervor over which seems to take on the aspects of a religion.

Now, have I said that ALL people who choose not to follow a religion behave this way? Clearly not. However there are plenty who do so.”

“chili36, thanks for the info. I am just scratching the surface of this issue and I appreciate the information. I still wonder who paid for the removal.”

“I don't know switchback. I haven't seen or heard anything about who paid for the removal.”