Posted on 02/22/2005 5:10:49 AM PST by SJackson
Should the nation's 4,000-odd Ten Commandments displays be removed from the courthouses, civic buildings and parks where they're installed? Beyond that, must public property be stripped of all references to religion?
On March 2, the US Supreme Court, whose own building features four artworks showing the sacred tablets - minus the biblical text - hears arguments on this emotional matter. The cases involve a large monument on the Texas Capitol grounds and a wall posting alongside secular documents in a Kentucky courthouse.
Religion's cultural and legal status in America could be affected by the results, yet the nation's major Christian denominations are surprisingly absent from the legal fray. That leaves atheists and followers of Asian religions working against such displays - claiming the commandments create favoritism for the Judeo-Christian tradition - while Christian activists left and right line up on opposite sides.
Jewish organizations also are divided.
The leaders of Orthodox Judaism have petitioned the high court to uphold the displays, arguing that the celebrated biblical text is religious but also conveys secular "principles of humanity and morality that have universal application." Decalogue displays don't compel passers-by to worship, the Orthodox say, and anyone who is offended can simply look away.
But Judaism's liberal Reform branch and Jewish communal organizations consider the commandments "intensely sectarian statements, amounting to a binding dogmatic statement of faith and morals." They believe the government is endorsing the text and thus violating the Constitution's ban on establishment of religion.
The Anti-Defamation League adds that the commandments are a flashpoint because fellow Jews are bound by all 613 scriptural rules, while Christians emphasize just the 10. It also sees a conflict with Islam, which deems the Bible a "corrupted textual tradition."
The Quran actually contains the commandments, but not as one list - and it differs by forbidding work only during Friday worship, not all day Saturday. Major US Muslim organizations have not taken stands on the cases.
Nor have many prominent Christian bodies. A spokesman says the Southern Baptist Convention figured activist groups could handle the pro-displays cause and the SBC wasn't asked to endorse their briefs. Attorneys for the Roman Catholic bishops' conference saw no direct church interest at stake. The National Council of Churches took no stand because member denominations disagree.
Though polls show the public favors the commandment displays, a view expressed by the U.S. Justice Department and all 26 state attorneys general who filed briefs, some Christian leaders are opposed. Charles Haynes, religion scholar at the Virginia-based First Amendment Center, thinks many church officials are silent because they can't afford to appear anti-Bible.
"A lot of religious groups would like these cases to just go away," he says.
Under Supreme Court doctrine, government actions must have a "secular purpose." Using that test, the court outlawed Ten Commandments postings in public schools in 1980.
Defenders of the displays in non-school contexts say the purpose is conveying of the nation's moral and legal tradition. Some Christian conservatives argue that even the overtly religious tenets among the Ten Commandments are legally important, because they put morality beyond the power of autocrats.
Noted legal historian Harold Berman of Emory University, for one, calls the decalogue "a historical source of universal legal obligations" and "an integral part of the legal heritage of Western civilization."
But David Friedman, who will present the case against Kentucky's display for the American Civil Liberties Union, maintains that "the Ten Commandments had virtually no effect or influence on the foundation of our country," despite "wildly exaggerated assertions" from advocates. A brief by 14 university professors backs his view.
Some might consider Ten Commandments displays to be unimportant in and of themselves. But the stakes will escalate greatly if the Supreme Court uses this moment to reconsider its overall policy concerning church-state separation.
The time could conceivably be right for such a shift. Conflicting opinions among seven federal appeals courts that have heard cases on the commandments over the last six years show how muddled government policy is when it comes to allowing religion into public life.
"It's a total mess," says Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel in Orlando, Florida, who will be opposing Friedman at the March hearing.
Staver thinks the high court needs to distinguish between illegal establishment of religion and "governmental acknowledgment (of faith), which the Constitution protects." Conservative Christians argue that religious coercion by government is the test that best fits what the Founding Fathers meant in forbidding "establishment."
But Haynes urges caution.
"When religious people push for the government to endorse their message, in the end it secularizes the religious message," he says. "Keeping government out of religion is in fact good for religion" so it's best to simply teach the commandments in homes, churches and synagogues.
Sometimes I really long for the old days. Teachers began the school day with a few Bible verses, a short prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, maybe a patriotic song, and as far as I could tell, no one objected. I believed it made America strong. Children growing up now have no sense of patriotism and when it comes time to protect our country in the future, who will go? Will they believe there is anything in America worth fighting for? Maybe we Christians should just get in the closet and keep quiet.
I do not expect much out of a court that made 'sodomy' a civil right.
Then again there have been more than a few that got a wake up call down through history. Christian who crawl in closets and keep quiet will fare no better than those that hate the Heavenly Father.
Yeah, that's a good idea - the "politically correct" Ten Commandments.
True.
Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago:
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.
Before Reconstruction, however, almost all of the States had the Commandments codified into civil law.
The Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments, written by David Barton, is a wonderful resource full of historical facts and quotes!
Perhaps the 'problem' is the first five of the 10 commandments, which deal with man's relationship to the Lord. Perhaps there could be a compromise by displaying only the last five, which are the historic basis of law.
Perhaps the problem is that the left view the 10 commandments as a checklist of things to accomplish before they die - been there done that, doing that one tommorrow, doing that one next week...
--- Perhaps the 'problem' is the first five of the 10 commandments, which deal with man's relationship to the Lord. Perhaps there could be a compromise by displaying only the last five, which are the historic basis of law. ---
No. The "problem" is that people have read a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Marbury Baptist Association and somehow deemed it to be above the constitution itself.
The wording in the 1st amendment is very clear. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Nowhere do the words "Separation of Church and State" exist in the constitution. It is reading of those words *into* the constitution where the problem lies.
If the SC simply concluded "Having a statue in front of a courthouse does not represent a law created by congress to establish any particular religion" they would be done.
Seriously! If I thought that the mere sight of religious text or an icon had that kind of power over me I think I'd lock myself in a foil-lined closet. I sure wish these people would.
What is most pathetic about the whole case is that the defense of posting the 10 commandments in public places has fallen to the "its historically significant" rather than "it is protected by the 1st amendment under the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.
The US Constitution allows posting of religious material. It only prohibits congressional laws regarding the establishment of religion.
This problem is an outstanding example of Judicial Tyranny. The SC is now more powerful than the constitution itself. It sees SC Doctrine as the rule of law.
The wording in the 1st amendment is very clear. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . If the SC simply concluded "Having a statue in front of a courthouse does not represent a law created by congress to establish any particular religion" they would be done.
So you think the U.S. federal and state governments are permitted to do anything that the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid them to do?
Did we repeal the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments when I wasn't watching? Or did you just miss a really important day of history class?
I do not expect much out of a court that made 'sodomy' a civil right.
And I don't expect much out of people who see nothing wrong with criminalizing private bedroom behavior. All the SCOTUS ruled was that it's unconstitutional for state law to make 'sodomy' a crime; people who regard that as 'judicial tyranny' strike me as tyrannical themselves. As with the posting of the Ten Commandments: if you don't like it, look away.
Before Reconstruction, however, almost all of the States had the Commandments codified into civil law.
Correct. And after Reconstruction, the states were subject to the newly ratified Fourteenth Amendment, which made just a wee bit of difference in what it was constitutional for them to do.
I have no particular problem with the public posting of the Ten Commandments, but it's not as simple as 'the First Amendment doesn't apply, so it's all right'.
Aren't they?
Did we repeal the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments when I wasn't watching?
The Ninth refers only to rights of the people that aren't enumerated. The Tenth refers only to powers not delegated to the Feds or prohibited to them being under the authority of the States or the people. The Fourteenth defines who is a citizen and prohibits the Feds and States from abridging their immunities and privileges as such.
How do any of those three Amendments apply to aesthetic displays? How do they prohibit the U.S. government or States from doing anything not specifically prohibited therein?
Who gave this bunch of 'Supremes' authority over States?
The framers of the Constitution -- which included judicial review from the get-go (see Federalist 78, well before Marbury v. Madison (1803)) and also included a procedure for ratification of amendments, which was followed in the case of the Fourteenth. In short, the setup from the very beginning gave 'this bunch of "Supremes"' the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws and regulations and such, and the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal judiciary constitutional authority over the states.
You may well be an attorney, and worship at the altar of these so called supremes, but I answer to a Higher Authority.
This statement is silly. People who disagree with you don't therefore fail to answer to Higher Authority.
It's just nonsense -- and anti-American nonsense at that -- to suggest that because the First Amendment says only that 'Congress shall make no law', that settles the matter. That's a recipe for a totalitarian government. Perhaps that's what people who want to pass laws criminalizing private bedroom conduct would like to have, but guess what: the Constitution -- and the Higher Authority Who endowed us with 'certain unalienable rights' -- says you can't.
What does "Congress shall make no law..." mean then?
Amendment ICongress 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.
The churches aren't silent, the media just refuse to interview them. It's called a news blackout.
So you think the U.S. federal and state governments are permitted to do anything that the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid them to do?Aren't they?
No.
Did we repeal the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments when I wasn't watching?The Ninth refers only to rights of the people that aren't enumerated. The Tenth refers only to powers not delegated to the Feds or prohibited to them being under the authority of the States or the people. The Fourteenth defines who is a citizen and prohibits the Feds and States from abridging their immunities and privileges as such.
It also prohibits each state from depriving any person (citizen or otherwise) of life, liberty, or property without dur process of law (the italicized word being the one on which Justice Kennedy relied in his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas), and from denying any person under its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.
How do any of those three Amendments apply to aesthetic displays? How do they prohibit the U.S. government or States from doing anything not specifically prohibited therein?
The entire point of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments was to settle a conflict between the parties among the framers who didn't want a Bill of Rights (because that might imply that any nonenumerated rights and powers had been ceded to the new federal government) and those who did want one (because they wanted to make absolutely sure there were certain things the new government was not permitted to do). The result is an express statement, in two amendments, that the federal government is obliged to respect even those rights not expressly enumerated in the text, and is not given any powers not expressly delegated to it in the text. (Of course these amendments applied only to the federal government when they were passed, because the Fourteenth Amendment didn't yet exist.)
It doesn't necessarily follow from any of this that courthouses can't display the Ten Commandments, and I'm not saying it does. But there are good arguments against it, and there are bad arguments against it. The one offered here is a bad one.
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.