The Ten Commandments : Incremental hair-splitting

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | 06/28/05 | Editorial

[smoothsailing]

The Ten Commandments: Incremental hair-splitting

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

The Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the posting of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses.

snip

In Texas, however, a 6-foot granite monument at the Statehouse was validated as not being too religious. It is one of 17 historical displays on a large lot.

One can read the decisions in whole as being irrational because they announce no firm rules of law. The justices, instead, will take up these matters on a case-by-case basis -- after they convene by asking God to look favorably upon the court.

If the justices voting against Kentucky -- Souter, Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg and Breyer -- do not feel embarrassment at their deficit at legal reasoning, they should.

Indeed, why Kentucky unconstitutionally promoted religion and Texas did not is unfathomable.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent in the Kentucky case:

"... (H)ow can the Court possibly assert that 'the First Amendment mandates neutrality between ... religion and nonreligion,' ... Who says so? Surely not the words of the Constitution. Surely not the history and traditions that reflect our society's constant understanding of those words."

In increments and by splitting hairs our courts and our culture are declaring their separation from the higher power that is the source of just law.

This declaration of independence mocks the original.

© 2004 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.

[muawiyah]

Justices Souter, Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg and Breyer are clearly mentally ill. Is it from overuse of drugs, or simply the physical deterioration of tissues that weren't all that sound in the first place.

[Lord Nelson]

Why do I feel that this is simply an attack on Christianity? Not a fight for the constitution.

I believe the separation of Church and state is important but it is also important to know what the intent was.

It was meant to stop Catholics from oppressing Protestants, Baptists from oppressing anabaptists, Christians from making second class citizens of Jews, ect ...

It was also meant to stop the Church from being watered down by the state. Politicians moving back and forth from state to business is bad enough - imagine if politicians infected the Church?

It was not meant to be a tool to bash Christians over the head with.

[GSlob]

"I believe the separation of Church and state is important but it is also important to know what the intent was."
Well, but how to write into, or find in, the law simple common sense and good manners: "do not push any religion in the face or ears of those who might not share or like it; and likewise, those who do not share or like it should not be going out of their way looking for it"?

[SandRat]

Andy Rooney
DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall,
right above where the Supreme Court judges sit,
a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy the rule of few over many.

DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

[TrailofTears]

Now that the great justices have ruled, now that the great law has come down from the mount, and the people have been enlightened, we humbly bow before the prevailing wisdom of our betters. Thankfully, the supreme court has saved us from such abuses as jailbirds and lawyers being forced to see a copy of that higher law when they enter a courtroom.

Of course i mean any other courtroom than their own. The room the justices sit in to hear cases has, not one, not two, not three, but four, yes, FOUR carved images of the Ten Commandments.

The first image is to the top right as facing the chief justices seat, and is Moses standing with the Ten Commandments in his hands, a relief carving done in the finest marble. The second is directly above the chief justices head, and the third is to the left as facing the chief justice; and the last is carved in wood in the doors.

Now, the question we ask ourselves here is???? Will they remove their copies of the Ten Commandments from their courtroom??? Absolutely Not! Without a doubt they have already prepared themselves years back with a ready answer to cries of hypocracy from the masses in this issue.

We might ask, who are they to have the Ten Commandments on their walls, and demand that it be removed from other court rooms? (Be careful in asking this as you are attempting to gain logic from the same crew that prays each and every session yet determines prayer is too dangerous for children in and around our public institutions.) They keep their Ten Commandments to remind us that they are "under God's direction" while they sit ruling and judging our nation.

The height of tyranny in all of this is not just the contradiction of them keeping what they will not allow others to keep; but, the fact that they refuse to admit that their copies of the Ten Commandments are indeed the Ten Commandments.

Take the tour of the supreme court. Ask the tour guide if those are the Ten Commandments in the hands of Moses, and over the chief justices head, carved in the door in the entrance to the court room, and over the north side of the court room: and you will be shocked to find out that you were wrong all along. You will be told that they are not the Ten Commandments, but rather are the "TEN SECULAR MORAL LAWS FOR ALL NATIONS." You might even get a little shocked and ask the guide if he/she is trying to say that the tables of stone in the hands of Moses are not the Ten Commandments but some other "secular moral commandments for all nations," and if they are when did he come to possess that instead of the Ten Commandments.

The real problem here, and a problem much worse than the supreme court telling other courts that they can't have what they have allowed for themselves, is that they are willing and able to use their position to lie about what is carved on the walls of the supreme court room.

They take what is a 3500 year old icon and change it willy nilly to suit their desire to lie about what is on their walls. How is this possible? I honestly can't say. All i can say is that they have no right to change the 3500 year old icon of the Ten Commandments. They might be able to get away with telling others that they cannot have what the supremes allow for themselves, but they have no right to instruct the tour guides to LIE about what the tables of stone with the commandments on them are.

This is tyranny of the worse sort. This is so far out of what is right that it defies the capacity to explain to the normal person how damaging this potentially is. They might not like the Ten Commandments, nor the effect of believing in them; but, they have no right to offer an alternative meaning to the image or icon of what the tables of stone with the numbers 1-10 represent.

I can think of no other lie that is being proposed in our government that is equal to the damage that something like this has the potential to do. How many years of supreme court tours will it take before you have to argue with the public over what the Ten Commandments are. You tell them that they are the Law handed down from God through Moses, and they respond that there is nothing of God in it at all but that the image represents nothing but a picture of "THE TEN SECULAR MORAL LAWS FOR ALL NATIONS."

I know all this because i took the tour as soon as Judge Roy Moore began to encounter what looked like a case that was going to the higher courts. I went with my brother who is a pretty well known and very well versed constitutional lawyer. (There probably isn't a single case of religious freedom or practice that has hit the supreme court that he hasn't been somehow involved in over the last 15 years.)

I was the one who reeled in shock at the words of that twit who parroted the idiocy that she was told to say about the image of the Ten Commandments found all over that courtroom. She also said that she was instructed by the people that are in charge with the court NOT TO MENTION THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. She also said that if someone brought them up then she was to say that they were not the Ten Commandments; but, rather, THE TEN SECULAR MORAL LAWS FOR ALL NATIONS. I could not let it go. I asked her to name the first of these "secular moral laws for all nations." She was unable to name a single one.

My greatest upset in all of this is that the court has gone way past any reasonable reaction here. They have no right to take a well known and visibly recognized icon (one shared by three major religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and change the meaning of it. They either need to shut up about it or to remove it, but the idea of changing what it means is an absolutely tyrannical action against free expression of religion,and government interference with our religious practices and beliefs.

[SandRat]

THE TEN SECULAR MORAL LAWS = THE TEN SUGGESTIONS and that won't work.

[smoothsailing]

Fantastic! I made a copy to keep in my wallet.Thanks,brother.

[kingu]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp gives a breakdown on the truth and untruths of the statements. It was also never done by Andy Rooney; not sure when that was added to this.

[E Rocc]

The Madison and Henry quotes are bogus:

Unconfirmed Quotations.

[Non-Sequitur]

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

I guess Joe Lieberman should just go home and shut up, huh?

[Non-Sequitur]

Here's a Madison quote that I'm pretty sure is accurate: "Who is it who cannot see that the same who would consecrate Christianity above all other religions would then have to consecrate a particular sect of Christians above all other sects?" By posting the version of the 10 Commandments followed by Protestants or by posting the version followed by Catholics you are placing one sect of Christianity over the other.

[E Rocc]

Here's a Madison quote that I'm pretty sure is accurate: "Who is it who cannot see that the same who would consecrate Christianity above all other religions would then have to consecrate a particular sect of Christians above all other sects?" By posting the version of the 10 Commandments followed by Protestants or by posting the version followed by Catholics you are placing one sect of Christianity over the other.

Exactly. The quote is from his "Memorial and Remonstrance", written in 1785. It makes his views on the subject of separation very clear.

-Eric

[joesbucks]

Why don't they just require that any religion have access to our public facilities for displays.

[muawiyah]

The Third Amendment is directed specifically at a method Louis XIV used to oppress Protestants.

[Tailgunner Joe]

By posting the version of the 10 Commandments followed by Protestants or by posting the version followed by Catholics you are placing one sect of Christianity over the other.

Not really. The state does not "consecrate" the commandments by posting them.

[Non-Sequitur]

Not really. The state does not "consecrate" the commandments by posting them.

But by funding with state money and posting them on public grounds then aren't they placing the tenets of one sect over those of another?

[Tailgunner Joe]

The state doesn't compel anyone to believe in the commandments just by posting them.

[Non-Sequitur]

The state doesn't compel anyone to believe in the commandments just by posting them.

Then why not post the Roman Catholic version or the Jewish version instead of the Protestant version?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Why should they?