The New Improved Ten Commandments

“Separation of church and state versus the ten suggestions...

It is unlawfull for the goverment to establish a state religion so it would be wrong for the goverment to create a religious display of any type.

HOWEVER!

It would be equaly wrong for the goverment to forbid a religious display as well.

SO

If a group of christians wanted to erect a display of the ten commandments at the courthouse then it should be allowed however a display of the koran must also be allowed as well. Neither display could be put up using goverment funding and if either site is charge for the space then all sites must be equally charged.”

“Sarge - Do you really think it was the Christian God referred to in the Declaration of Independence? Have you read it recently?”

“v - Those are great examples of how the government is NOT establishing a religion, even though religious concepts are in our legal system.”

“Hey Violin, I got a special tax for having another God before me. It's the heathen tax.”

“violin - Where did I say that I thought the Christian God was being referenced?”

“How abou Article 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli (signed by John Adams)?”

“"respecting an establishment of religion" and "establishing a religion" are not the same thing.”

“Phaedrus - agreed. This is not a new debate. Differing opinions have been expressed before, as absurd as they may be.”

“"Where did I say that I thought the Christian God was being referenced?"

"the founding fathers used the word "God" and "creator" in documents during our founding (ie - Declaration of Independence)"”

“Hint: It says "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".”

“violin - Yeah ... let me ask it another way.

"Where did I say that I thought the Christian God was being referenced?"

violin - also ... read my post dated "8:59:12 AM"
last edited: 3/03/05 11:43:04 AM”

“You really see this as absurd? John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had nothing on you, eh?”

“Duuudes, the fact we as a nation have a Christian heritage and the fact that the 10 Commandments are displayed DOES NOT make other religions illegal. It does NOT ESTABLISH that you must abide by Christianity. If "Christianity" were part of the law of the State, then it would be illegal to not be a Christian. By merely displaying the 10 Commandments does not "establish" Christianity as an official religion and all others are illegal. This is absolutely ludicrous. You can be Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Satanic or Humanistic or Atheist or None Of The Above or All of the Above and there are no established laws telling you what you must believe or face jail.”

“Phaedrus - Jefferson was not succesful in getting "separation of church and state" in the context you are referencing it into our constitution. I don't care what their arguments are either way - what is relevant is what was agreed upon.

Do you mind if I use arguments that were not agreed upon when determining our government's structure? I'm sure I can find a few guys who wanted Christianity to be a basis of our government.

Your argument that they are "better" than I am does not make them right.”

“As opposed to what the Founding Fathers came from... where religion and the government were intertwined in an ugly and forceful way. They were merely protecting us from having an instutionalized religion and having no freedoms to worship or not worship as we please. Look at our history, especially at the time this clause was inserted, and you'll see they did not take away such displays because that's not what the intent was.”

“Buck - I think their argument is we should not use "context" when debating this. There preference would seem to be that we make a NEW constitution. Keep your eyes open for a revolution by the left-winged radicals among us. Be afraid. Be very very afraid.
last edited: 3/03/05 11:55:14 AM”

“I enjoy freedom from religion thanks to those founding paternalistic guys.

It's really quite liberating.”

“Sarge - I was invoking them to point out that calling the argument absurd is absurd. Right and wrong in this case is a matter of interpretation - both interpretations could be labelled absurd equally.

Buck - RESPECTING an establishemnt of religion does not mean ESTABLISHING a religion.

Publicly enshrining religious items in governmental buildings certainly does seem like "respecting an establishment of religion", especially when one considers that it is only one religion represented.”

“Phaedrus - You assumed I was talking about them for some reason as being absurd. Bad assumption. What I did say is "Differing opinions have been expressed before, as absurd as they may be."”

“hahaha i thought this was gonna be about some new kinda ketchup or something.”

“Thanks helinka, you're a dear!!”

“i'm also drugged up to my wazzzoo”

“Yeah, okay. Sorry for taking something you said out of context. What opinion, exactly, is absurd?

Speaking of context, your quote above about context and a "new constitution" is absurd, but I'm pretty sure you knew that and were just trying to bait folks.”

“Yeah, okay. Sorry for taking something you said out of context. What opinion, exactly, is absurd?

> I was not specifying an opinion. I said that some opinions may be absurd. The point being that what is relevant is what is reality, not somebody's misinterpretation of reality. I think you would agree with that.

Speaking of context, your quote above about context and a "new constitution" is absurd, but I'm pretty sure you knew that and were just trying to bait folks.”

> I don't think it is absurd. If you want to ignore context when reading a document that tells us how to live, you are in effect redefining meaning. That is equivalent to creating a "new constitution" as the words themselves are not what is important, but the interpretation of them is.

-- of course, that's the purpose of liberalism - to *change* interpretation and application
last edited: 3/03/05 12:14:42 PM”

“The whole biblical connection is crap. American law is based on British law.
Why can't people just leave well enough alone. If a display of the ten commandments has been around a courthouse when it was built, then leave it there. You're looking to add a new display, then you shouldn't. Any attempt to do so is simply trying to Christianize the legal process.
People really need to look up what the basis of the american legal system was founded on.”

“Dang British!~!!”

“And things mentioned in the commandments, like murder and stealing are almost universally in existance whatever the religion anyway. They don't hold their origins in the ten commandments.”

“I gotta hand it to Phaed. Great thread! You've been flying under the radar for some time now and then, BAB!

Nice to see ya flexin' them skillz again! LOL!”

“I don't think it is absurd. If you want to ignore context when reading a document that tells us how to live, you are in effect redefining meaning. That is equivalent to creating a "new constitution" as the words themselves are not what is important, but the interpretation of them is.

This isn't new or without context. The supreme court rules on a specific interpretation of contitutional law, and lower courts are obliged to accept this interpretation. These interpretations change with time. Does that mean every current interpretation of every constitutional clause is bad and we need a new one? Of course not. THAT'S absurd.

-- of course, that's the purpose of liberalism - to *change* interpretation and application

I won't argue with that.”

“Phaed, this is talking about Congress NOT establishing laws respecting (regarding) the establishment of a national religion. It's pretty simple. Congress didn't want to have another government-sponsored religion like what they came from in Europe. Congress wanted to make this a "state" issue (as in individual states).

Heck, Phaed, look at the Constitution of Californnia... is California an illegal "state"?

-------------------
"CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA"

[1849*]

"We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution."”

“No offense, Buck, but You're about as unbiased a source as the pope and jerry falwell's love-child when it comes to things like this. Anywhere you see the word "God" in governmental papers, it seems you clap and cheer, "more, more!".

I'd rather have the strictest separation of church and state so my religion is not corrupted by my government.”

“Phaedrus, wasn't it you who recently commented on fallicious arguments?”

“Oh, and Nigal, when did you stop beating your wife?

;)”

“It has always seemed clear to me that the framers intended merely to avoid having a state religion, as had been the case in Europe at the time.

The question then becomes, in the lacking of a state religion, how can you have linkage between church and state (or mosque and state, or synagogue and state)?

And does that lack of a state religion imply that there should be no belief in God (creator) within the government?

The constitutional wording is pretty simple, but its implications go beyond that simple statement.

And just when you have it figured out, somebody comes along with yet another opinion.

This is why Supreme Court justices get paid the big bucks.”

“geo - the "church and state separation" issue you mentioned is a separate issue.

As you said, the government shall not have a state religion.

But regarding linkage, that is not prohibited by the constitution (as you indicated), therefore it is allowed.

IF one were to have a problem with that, the resolution would not (correctly) be for the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution, but instead would be for law makers to make a new law, or for a serious enough issue, for a new amendment be added to the constitution. In this case, one that either allows or disallows religion to be referenced in government.

Seeing that law usually works off of precedence, and seeing that this nation from the very beginning "linked" religion with government, I find it doubtful a new amendment would pass that would disallow the government linkage. Unless of course, we decided to throw precedence and historical context out the window and, in effect, begin a new country.”

“See I don't understand what benefit there is in here apart to promote a religion. It's not gonna cut crime.”

“The benefit is that "we the people" can mold the government. If it weren't for the 1st amendment, the government could mold us.”

“Did we "start a new country" when we gave women the right to vote or when we ended segregation?”

“Phaedrus - Do you realize that you just argued that what the constitution says is wrong and needs to be changed?”

“yes Sarge, it'll be Jesusland in our lifetime.
last edited: 3/03/05 1:15:04 PM”

“Your interpretation of the words I typed is a good example of an interpretation that needs to be changed.

I have not argued for a constitutional amendment. I'm not sure exactly how you arrived at that conclusion. Perhaps you'd enlighten me?”

“I'm having Tuscan Vegetable Soup.




And don't forget the crackers!”

“Oh, wait, I see what you're saying. No, Sarge, I don't think this is a case where an amendment needs to be made. The supreme court will rule one way or the other on the issue.”

“I also think there needs to be a thought not just of what the consitiution says, but alo what the implications are for the future. The campaigners will move onto something else next. What sort of legal system you want to end up with?”

“y2 - If we're lucky. (re: Jesusland)

phaedrus: You asked the question "Did we ""start a new country" when we gave women the right to vote or when we ended segregation?"

You used those examples in reply to my suggestion that adding things to the constitution that were not previously there would be, in effect, changing the country.

If you believe that those 2 examples you listed were change, I'm sure you are aware that they effectively "changed" what was in practice previous to that. In other words, women were not necessarily allowed to vote before that. You are in effect saying that change is sometimes good

By using that example in this discussion it implies that you want to *change* the 1st amendment. We were talking about, not changing it, but understanding what is already written. The 19th amendment was not an "understanding" of a previous law, but an addition/change.

Therefore, you seemed to have changed your position. You were arguing that we need to know how to read the 1st amendment, but now you seem to be suggesting we change it.

ps - Phaedrus, I hadn't seen your last post before posting this.
last edited: 3/03/05 1:24:53 PM”

“See then you're no better than those wishing to impose strict Islamic law, or have a country run by Mullahs then Sarge. Same thing, different religion.”

“Different thing y2. One is by choice (the people do it) - the other is by force (the government does it.

I am not suggesting that we make a law that the government has that power, as the groups you mentioned would, but am suggesting that it would be great if that were to happen through people's choice.”

“This year will be the first ruling by the supreme court on ten commandments displays in government buildings, I believe. This will BE the precedent.

Oh, and when it becomes Jesusland, I'll be living in the United States of Canada.”

“Phaedrus - Don't you think when they argue this they will discuss precedent and historical context of the 1st amendment? I do.”

“You can read the transcript if you'd like:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050302perry.pdf

O'Connor seems to be the swing vote.”