Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

Cephus said:

On public land. It doesn't matter who pays for it, where it stands does. No matter who pays for it, it's still a waste of money.

Click to expand...

So are videogames. If/how someone wastes their money is not your buisness.

Summerwind said:

From what I'm reading here and have knowledge of from the past. For the most part, federal judges are "removing" 10 commandments that are not part of a larger presentation. So it seems that if a community is allowing a reasonably comprehensive display, then judges are allowing, if standalone, it's being refused. My understanding is that in the latter, other monuments were requested and offered to be paid by private funds but put on public property, and those resulted in the 10Cs being ordered to be removed. This whole comment is based solely on my memory, so take it with a grain or two of salt.

Click to expand...

I don't have better information so I'll take your word for it.

Jerry said:

So are videogames. If/how someone wastes their money is not your buisness.

Click to expand...

It is when it takes place on public property. What someone does in the privacy of their own homes and/or churches, so long as it doesn't violate the law, is up to them.

disneydude said:

Sounds to me like it is you that is getting all "butt-hurt" over this. There are plenty of places to put the 10 Commandments. No one is denying anyone the opportunity to place them in 99% of the places they want. Why is it necessary to post religious icons on governmental squares?

Click to expand...

Why was it necessary for the first Congress to appropriate money to hire chaplains for each of its houses?

matchlight said:

Why was it necessary for the first Congress to appropriate money to hire chaplains for each of its houses?

Click to expand...

If they did not have a problem with slavery...you think they were gonna defend Jews and Catholics' rights?

Cephus said:

It is when it takes place on public property. What someone does in the privacy of their own homes and/or churches, so long as it doesn't violate the law, is up to them.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of erecting monuments with the Ten Commandments on public property. See Van Orden v. Perry. Another loss for atheists, who can't stand the fact this country was founded by English Protestants and has had religion intertwined with its government from the beginning. To hear these killjoys talk, if a kid so much as glances at his elementary school classmates rehearsing a Christmas play, the trauma will be enough to ruin him for life.

The "wall of separation" language from Thomas Jefferson's letter of reassurance to a nervous religious group was never the law until 1947, when the phrase was picked up by the Supreme Court and used in its first venture into the Establishment Clause, Everson v. Board of Education. It's worth noting that Justice Hugo Black, who wrote the Everson decision, had been a Klan official in Alabama and had no love lost on the Catholic Church.

So it's a little surprising that the Court upheld the authority of a New Jersey school board, acting pursuant to a state law, to reimburse parents for the cost of transporting their children to Catholic schools. What Everson is noted for is its thorough discussion of the meaning of the Establishment Clause, and for the fact all nine justices agreed it was meant to do something more than just prevent Congress from establishing an official U.S. religion.

The Court's Establishment Clause decisions since Everson have made the "wall" between church and state into more of a flexible, permeable barrier.

Cephus said:

It is when it takes place on public property. What someone does in the privacy of their own homes and/or churches, so long as it doesn't violate the law, is up to them.

Click to expand...

Sure but were not talking about private property, just private money. Even with these lawsuits, private money is paying the court fees.

1750Texan said:

If they did not have a problem with slavery...you think they were gonna defend Jews and Catholics' rights?

Click to expand...

They DID have a problem with slavory, it just wasn't a battle they could win at the time.

Cephus said:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

Hitler was very clear that he was a Christian. Whether you like that or not, that doesn't change the fact. Try again.

Click to expand...

LOL !

Yes, Hitler who was responsible for the liquidation of millions of Jews was a follower of a Judeo-Christian religion....riiight...

Besides, in those quotes he sounded allot like a lying Politician. Can you supply the dates when he said those things ?

And besides, you supplied quotes, I supplied proof of what Hitler DID. He persecuted Christians for being Christians.

Hitler also sought to forbid the publication of the Bible, the posting of the Christian cross and the liquidation of all Christian clergy and other publications.

Yea, some " Christian " he was.

Fenton said:

Lol....

No, Hitler was NOT a Christian. I understand WHY that narrative has been perpetuated but I don't understand why so many so effortlessly buy into it without even thinking about cracking open a History book.


Hitler was pushing for the creation of a National Reich Church and had he stayed in power there's no doubt he would have succeeded.

Here are a few points taken from the National Rieche Church's 30 point program.

1. The National Reich's Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich; it declares these to be national churches:

5. The National Reich Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably and by every means the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

7. The National Reich Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

10. The National Reich Church irrevocably strives for complete union with the state. It must obey the state as one of its servants. As such, it demands that all landed possessions of all churches and religious denominations be handed over to the state. It forbids that in future churches should secure ownership of even the smallest piece of German soil or that such be ever given back to them. Not the churches conquer and cultivate land and soil but exclusively the German nation, the German state.

13. The National Reich Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany as well as the publication of Sunday papers, pamphlets, publications and books of a religious nature.


14. The National Reich Church has to take severe measures in order to prevent the Bible and other christian publications being imported into Germany.

15. The National Reich Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuhrer's "Mein Kampf" is the greatest of all documents. It is conscious that this book contains and embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.

18. The National Reich Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of Saints.

19. On the altars there must be nothing but "Mein Kampf", which is to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book, and to the left of the altar a sword.

22. The National Reich Church repudiates the christening of German children, particularly the christening with water and the Holy Ghost.

28. The National Reich Church rejects the customary day of prayer and atonement. It demands that this be transferred to the holiday commemorating the laying of the foundation stone of the National Reich Church.


And............

Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

I love how this Wikipedia article was created in 2013. Seems the persecution didn't exist prior to that. Strange that, very strange. Almost like someone just made it up.

RogueWarrior said:

I love how this Wikipedia article was created in 2013. Seems the persecution didn't exist prior to that. Strange that, very strange. Almost like someone just made it up.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

The Points outlining the intentions of Hitler's iniative to start a National Riech Church were NOT from Wikepedia.

They were from a book I own called " The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich "

Here we go...
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
Self serving religious law Has nothing to do with the secular world.

2. You shall not make idols.
Self serving religious law . Has nothing to do with the secular world.

3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Self serving religious law. Has nothing to do with the secular world.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Self serving religious law. Has nothing to do with the secular world.

5. ]Honor your father and your mother.
Obeying and respecting anyone is something that should be earned ...not commanded by a supernatural edict.

6. You shall not murder.
Common humanity ...not observed by most monotheistic cultures. More people killed in the name of god that any other reason.

7. ]You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
These three are just saying, be honest. Simple humanity and empathy should direct any human to these conclusions.

10.You shall not covet.
The basis of all materialistic societies and the driving force behind the free market.
A strange rule for Americans to even pretend to condone.

That leaves us with two.

1. Be honest.

2. Don't kill anyone.
If you want to put these on the courthouse wall or on a stone in front of city hall ...
Be my guest. No one will argue with you.


With apologies to George Carlin.

matchlight said:

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of erecting monuments with the Ten Commandments on public property. See Van Orden v. Perry.

Click to expand...

The same day Van Orden was decided, the Supreme Court ruled another courthouse display UNconstitutional in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union. The difference was that the Van Orden display was clearly marked as a donation by a primarily secular civic group, had other symbology on it, and was one of a couple of dozen other monuments/displays. So the Court ruled it had a secular purpose of historical value.
In McCreary, the purpose was held to be religious and therefore unconstitutional.

Oh, and the Supreme Court first referenced the wall of desperation in Reynolds v United States in 1878. Everson was citing Reynolds.

matchlight said:

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of erecting monuments with the Ten Commandments on public property.

Click to expand...

Not in all cases. When it's part of a larger display, and displayed primarily for historical ends, it's allowed. When it is classified as an establishment of religion, it is not allowed. As was decided in McCreary County v ACLU, which was issued the same day as Van Orden v Perry.

Another loss for atheists, who can't stand the fact this country was founded by English Protestants and has had religion intertwined with its government from the beginning.

Click to expand...

Atheists have no problem recognizing that the colonies were inhabited by people fleeing religious persecution... or that some of those colonists turned right around persecuted some of their own citizens on religious grounds. By preventing the government from establishing a state religion, citizens would not have to fear a repeat of that kind of persecution from their own government.

To hear these killjoys talk....

Click to expand...

A 6 foot monument ordering you not to commit adultery is your idea of fun?

The Court's Establishment Clause decisions since Everson have made the "wall" between church and state into more of a flexible, permeable barrier.

Click to expand...

Everson expanded the separation of church and state from the federal level to the states. This extension was, in many ways, more important than the actual decision itself.

As to the "flexible barrier," it's been nearly 70 years of courts trying to balance the need to separate church and state, and other issues such as freedom of expression. I doubt you'd be happy if the courts sided exclusively on the side of separation, at the expense of other rights.

pinqy said:

The same day Van Orden was decided, the Supreme Court ruled another courthouse display UNconstitutional in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union. The difference was that the Van Orden display was clearly marked as a donation by a primarily secular civic group, had other symbology on it, and was one of a couple of dozen other monuments/displays. So the Court ruled it had a secular purpose of historical value.
In McCreary, the purpose was held to be religious and therefore unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know about the companion case from Kentucky, and I know how the Court distinguished the two. Obviously the majority saw unacceptable coercion in the Kentucky case and not in the Texas case, and the factors you mentioned played a part in the different results. But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The claim I was responding to was that erecting monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments is only constitutional if done on private land. Van Orden proves that is not necessarily true.

Oh, and the Supreme Court first referenced the wall of desperation in Reynolds v United States in 1878.

Click to expand...

In plain English, please. I don't even know what you're talking about.

Everson was citing Reynolds.

Click to expand...

If you're going to claim the Court in Everson cited Reynolds--and I'm not claiming to know it did not-- give the exact citation to support your claim, instead of expecting me or someone else to comb through the whole damned decision trying to figure out what you're talking about. And while you're at it, tell us exactly what proposition you think the Court cited Reynolds for. I'm not going to waste much time disproving assertions you can't be bothered to support with specific references. But just from a quick search, I don't see any citation to Reynolds in Everson, nor is it obvious why the principle Reynolds stands for would have been important in Everson.

And so I have no idea why you brought Reynolds up in a thread about religious symbols in the public square. It's not an Establishment Clause case at all, but a Free Exercise Clause case involving polygamy laws. The Reynolds Court held that the right to free exercise may not be used to excuse violations of criminal laws, and that making polygamy a crime did not violate that right--it prohibited a practice, and not a religious belief. Reynolds is usually cited to show how the Court at first interpreted the Free Exercise Clause far more narrowly than it was to do in later years.

Employment Division v. Smith in 1990 was a stunning reversal of this trend toward broader interpretation, back toward the view in Reynolds. Smith was very unpopular, and Congress reacted by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It was the RFRA that was at issue recently in the Hobby Lobby decision. Did you bring up Reynolds because you want to turn this thread into a discussion of Hobby Lobby?

Get it out of there. If you want your religious idols, put them up on private land.

Unless you can handle statues for every silly religion.

How about some meaningful 10 commandments?

Visbek said:

Not in all cases. When it's part of a larger display, and displayed primarily for historical ends, it's allowed. When it is classified as an establishment of religion, it is not allowed. As was decided in McCreary County v ACLU, which was issued the same day as Van Orden v Perry.

Click to expand...

Justice Breyer was the swing vote in both those cases--his concurring opinion made the difference in Van Orden. Far from wrapping up the distinction in a neat rule, as you seem to want to do, he emphasized how these cases call for a subtle analysis of the facts to determine if the effect of a display is inconsistent with the values the First Amendment's two religion clauses express. Deciding each case on its particular facts is just the opposite of applying an established rule--it's what courts do when they do not have any clear rule to follow.

The Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is as unclear and difficult as it gets. Lots of things seem to be governed by clear little rules to people who have very little understanding of them. Read Lynch v. Donnelly and Allegheny County together, and then explain to us exactly what the rule on Christmastime displays in public places is. That is, if you can.

And I wonder how you would fit Capitol Square Review Board into your rule about the Establishment Clause question turning on "part of a larger display," "primarily for historical ends," etc. The Court held that crosses the KKK was allowed to erect on public land across from the Ohio state capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause, and yet they were neither part of a larger display nor displayed primarily for historical purposes. Tell us how that squares with McCreary County.

Atheists have no problem recognizing that the colonies were inhabited by people fleeing religious persecution...

Click to expand...

Escape from religious persecution was only one reason people first came from England to America, and it played no part in the decision of many of them.

or that some of those colonists turned right around persecuted some of their own citizens on religious grounds. By preventing the government from establishing a state religion, citizens would not have to fear a repeat of that kind of persecution from their own government.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's a very accurate statement of the motivation for the Establishment Clause. A number of the states had their own official religions, and although enforcing them had caused a lot of resentment, that hadn't made the states generally abandon the idea. But even granting there was general agreement in 1791 that the United States should not have a national religion like many other countries had, it's far from clear the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent the federal government from generally supporting Christianity. I'm not going to debate here how much the Establishment Clause was meant to do beyond prohibiting an official religion--but the question is highly debatable.

A 6 foot monument ordering you not to commit adultery is your idea of fun?

Click to expand...

Ah, what wit! Adultery has traditionally been a crime in most states, if not all. If the majority of a state's residents want to promote their belief that adultery is immoral and unacceptable by making it a crime, that's their business, and no one else's. What I personally think of the commandment against adultery, adultery laws, etc. is irrelevant.

My concern is the right of Americans to celebrate and promote traditional American culture and values in the face of harassment by America-loathing atheists who ironically call themselves "liberal." What they really are is today Puritans--self-righteous, close-minded prigs who want to boss around everyone they think is less morally enlightened than they are.

Everson expanded the separation of church and state from the federal level to the states. This extension was, in many ways, more important than the actual decision itself.

Click to expand...

Again, that's not an accurate statement. Everson was the Court's first real Establishment Clause decision, period. So it had no cases declaring any separation of church and state to expand to anything. It was only in Everson that Justice Black declared that phrase from Thomas Jefferson's letter to be the law. Everson applied the Establishment Clause to the federal government and the states at the same time.

As to the "flexible barrier," it's been nearly 70 years of courts trying to balance the need to separate church and state, and other issues such as freedom of expression. I doubt you'd be happy if the courts sided exclusively on the side of separation, at the expense of other rights.

Click to expand...

Right idea, wrong freedom. It's not the freedom of speech that overly strict interpretations of the Establishment Clause threatens, but the right to free exercise of religion. As the Court has discussed (in Zorach v. Clauson, for example) there is some tension between the two religion clauses, so that pushing the Establishment Clause too far may violate the Free Exercise Clause.

If a fire breaks out in the kitchen at First Baptist as the ladies in the flock are busily preparing for the church bake sale, shouldn't the city fire department just let it burn? After all a municipal government is only a creature of the state where it's located. And if the Establishment Clause means strict separation of church and state, we can't have the state government helping a church, can we?

Fenton said:

LOL !

Yes, Hitler who was responsible for the liquidation of millions of Jews was a follower of a Judeo-Christian religion....riiight...

Click to expand...

Yup, followed Martin Luther, a noted anti-Semite who wanted to throw all of the Jews out of their houses, confiscate all of their property and if they didn't like it, he said they were welcome to whine to their God. But I'm sure you're not aware of that either. History doesn't seem to be your subject.

I don't know what Hitler has to do with anything but the godwin is stupid.

matchlight said:

Yes, I know about the companion case from Kentucky, and I know how the Court distinguished the two. Obviously the majority saw unacceptable coercion in the Kentucky case and not in the Texas case, and the factors you mentioned played a part in the different results. But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The claim I was responding to was that erecting monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments is only constitutional if done on private land. Van Orden proves that is not necessarily true.

Click to expand...

My point was that you didn't say it wasn't necessarily true...you wrote "The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of erecting monuments with the Ten Commandments on public property." No qualifications or stipulations or distinctions. Someone not familiar with the law would have been lead to believe by your statement that any and all 10C monuments would be acceptable.
The Court has consistantly ruled that religious symbols/messages that are part of a historical display or overall secular purpose are perfectly acceptable. But when the intent or purpose is or could appear to be, purely religious, then that is getting into the realm of endorsement.

pinqy said:

Oh, and the Supreme Court first referenced the wall of desperation in Reynolds v United States in 1878.

Click to expand...

In plain English, please. I don't even know what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

It meant fat fingered typing and bad spell-check. It should have been "wall of separation." You claimed Everson was the first reference to Jefferson's Wall of Separation from the Danbury Baptists letter. It was Reynolds, and the Everson Court was citing Reynolds with that reference.

If you're going to claim the Court in Everson cited Reynolds--and I'm not claiming to know it did not-- give the exact citation to support your claim, instead of expecting me or someone else to comb through the whole damned decision trying to figure out what you're talking about. And while you're at it, tell us exactly what proposition you think the Court cited Reynolds for. I'm not going to waste much time disproving assertions you can't be bothered to support with specific references. But just from a quick search, I don't see any citation to Reynolds in Everson, nor is it obvious why the principle Reynolds stands for would have been important in Everson.

Click to expand...

That's odd. You talk about Everson being the first mention of the Wall of Separation, but the reference to it is "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164. " directly citing Reynolds.

My point was that your claim that "The "wall of separation" language from Thomas Jefferson's letter of reassurance to a nervous religious group was never the law until 1947" was false. It was first used by the SCOTUS in Reynolds in 1878....69 years earlier than your claim. That makes a difference.

Cephus said:

Yup, followed Martin Luther, a noted anti-Semite who wanted to throw all of the Jews out of their houses, confiscate all of their property and if they didn't like it, he said they were welcome to whine to their God. But I'm sure you're not aware of that either. History doesn't seem to be your subject.

Click to expand...

He executed, persecuted and targeted Christian clergy because the Church doctrine wasn't compatible with Nazi ideology.

Unlike you my History lessons aren't limited to 5 minute Google searches.

And wanted to create a National Reich Church that worshipped Germany and HIM instead of God.

And I asked for a date for those quotes.

faithful_servant said:

The Ten Commandments are one of the foundational legal statements of mankind. They are entirely appropriate to posted in front of a courthouse. The examples you give are NOT part of the foundational legal examples of our society, the Ten are (along with several other documents). This is the reason they are there an as such, they should be left alone. It's why we haven't removed all the rest of the examples of the Ten from our federals buildings, because they represent one of the core documents of our legal system.

Now, I'll most likely be accused of stating that the Ten are the foundation of our laws, which I most certainly am not stating. They are a part of it, but not the whole of it.

Click to expand...

I don't mind if the 10 commandments are in monument form outside of a court so long as the court rules by the laws of man, not the laws of god. But laws, even those which formed the basis for some of their modern corellaries, predate the Bible and the 10 Commandments.

ernst barkmann said:

thatS correct, the 1st is a restriction placed on the federal government to make no LAWS concerning religion,

having a monument on a piece of property is not..... LAW.

Click to expand...

No, it's actually blasphemy. We know what goes on in the building of blind justice. As many wrongs as rights.

faithful_servant said:

The Ten Commandments are one of the foundational legal statements of mankind. They are entirely appropriate to posted in front of a courthouse. The examples you give are NOT part of the foundational legal examples of our society, the Ten are (along with several other documents).

Click to expand...

And as part of a display/monument with other such documents, there would be no issue. For example, on the East Pediment of the Supreme Court Building is a sculpture of Moses, Confucius, and Solon, while inside are two friezes which have depictions of Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon.

But the 10C, by themselves, or as the sole non-U.S. law in a display implies that U.S. law is based on the Commandments.