A stained glass window of George Washington praying, in the chapel in the U.S. Capitol
Posted on 12/08/2004 5:08:56 PM PST by nypokerface
WASHINGTON - 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.
I believe it is the "Reasonable people" who understand that
any display is just that. Any acknowledgement of religon
ought not be construed as a government endorsement of a
religion. but seems precisely what the Soviet Communists
and atheists of the ACLU desire-contrary to what was
the intent. (see 1853-1854 Congressional reports on the
Establishment clause.)The State ought be allowed to display
what they will- IF the Supremes will not intervene when the activist and errant Court of Mass. oversteps its'
constitutional bounds to declare homosexual marriage legal
there- then the States ought be allowed any religious displays,as originally intended. In close.I alone determine
how I feel -I hav eno compassion for those unreasonable few
who insist their godless feelings are hurt by what I believe.
"It is an establishment, when the 10 Commandments are given space in these public places, while other religions and agnosticism and atheism do not have the same opportunity to post their key beliefs in those places."
So we have established the religion of MLK Jr worship by giving him a statue? Of course not. Your statement does not make sense. You are falling for the ACLU's illogic.
It does NOT COMPEL any belief and is not inherent exclusive nor coercive to have a display ... it is simply a public testimonial.
"And personally, I wouldn't be too happy to see "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" sprouting in our courthouses and public schools, ..."
well, Mohammed's been put into public displays on U.S. property - at the Supreme Court. Get over it.
I am FAR FAR more offended by Cesar Chavez street that ANY of these 'scaremongering scenarios' including putting any scriptural plaque on courthouse grounds ... and yet our town spends tens of thousands of dollars to change signs.
We also have a statue to Barbara Jordan at our airport.
Such worship of Liberal Icons is a form of Idolatry according to your standards... where is the ACLU when you need them???
"We have seperated church and state. The ACLU want to do away with God. Period. They have lit on the seperation of church and state for one reason and one reason only. They want a secular country."
That about right ... there are 3 choices:
1. Established sectarian church defined by the State.
2. Freedom of worship and religious liberty.
3. Established secularism.
ACLU does *not* want #2 - they want #3.
"What's your point? Maybe Utah courthouses and public schools should be plastered with pronouncements from past and current prophets of the Mormon Church, because the majority of Utahns are Mormons. The heck with all the other Utahns, many of whom hold beliefs in stark opposition to those of the Mormon Church."
What's your point?
Our local elementary school is plastered with environmental gobbledegook-speak, to heck with the feelings and beliefs of those of us who don't live eco-evangelization shoved down our kids throats... (oh that's right, reason #8 why our kids are not AT those schools!)
So, the point is that only *secularist* ideologoies are acceptable to be dictated to young 'uns? As church lady would say, how conveeeenient.
Nice to see some positive action being attempted.
"Picking a version of the Word of God and posting it in courthouses certainly sounds like state-imposed theocracy to me."
'sounds like' but "is not".
Sounds like you buy into the sloppy thinking of our modern age, The historical issue of theocracy revolved around the coercion of beliefs - this involved NONE of that. At it is contradictory to what religious freedom really meant to Americans prior to 1963.
There really *was* religious freedom for more Americans than can be found with today's imposed secularism; where is the 'freedom of worship when public expressions of religious sentiment are BANNED? IS THAT NOT A VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF SPEECH AND CONSCIENCE? Think about it!
"Um... you are aware that Hammurabi was king of Babylon from 1728-1686 BC, not a religious figure, right?"
I worship Hammurabi... He's a God to me.
Does that change your mind about the appropriateness of putting a statue of his Code on display?
" ... since with it's lack of specificity, it isn't likely to offend any reasonable person."
Ahem, the only people offended by ANY of this, which merely reflects the historical and current beliefs of most Americans, are UNREASONABLE people.
"But highly specific religious texts and pronouncements, especially those that explicitly denigrate or declare superiority over differing belief systems"
Dear me... so stating what you belive in "denigrates"
other belief systems. What relativist/modernist claptrap!
And since when is "offending people" the moral rule to follow? I AM OFFENDED BY THAT RULE!
And since you "MUST Not Offend" you must discard that rule!
Please stop posting now - your posting is inherently offensive to logical people!
"particularly in courts, where people may reasonably feel that they are not getting impartial treatment if their professed belief system differs from the one publicly promoted at the courthouse."
I am sure that the "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" could be offensive to a number of witnesses... but I wonder if that is such a bad thing. btw, it's not the 'belief' or felling of impartiality that is important, its the fact of impartiality. That has to do with the Judges behavior, not with the displays.
What do you find offensive with the 10 Commandments?
Hopefully my tagline says it all.
Roy Moore will be next Governor of Alabama if he wants it!!
As I have previously posted on this thread, the most obviously offensive -- to our whole Constitutionally established system of non-establishment of religion -- is the commandment about "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Guess what, lots of Americans worship different gods than the one who allegedly handed down this set of commandments (and plenty worship no god at all). And they should not be greeted at a courthouse by a plaque which explicitly dictates that their religious beliefs are wrong, and by implication, that the court does not respect their religious beliefs as equal before the law.
Sean has been hitting on this - asking guests where it is in the Constitution. Sean can get very repetitive, but this is one I want to see repeated, often.
Nothing, per se. Just as long as you post the correct version of the 10 Commandments.
I. I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.
II. You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.
III. You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
IV. Honor your father and your mother.
V. You shall not kill.
VI. You shall not commit adultery.
VII. You shall not steal.
VIII. You shall not bear false witness.
IX. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
X. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.
If you post "Thou shalt not lie" and "Thou shalt not steal" in courthouses then couldn't lawyers and judges make a case for hostile workplace environments?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.