NEWS: The Ten Commandments Reach the Supreme Court

For the second time in 25 years, a legal battle that began in Kentucky and Texas could determine whether Ten Commandments displays on public property across the country can stay put or must come down. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on a couple of cases that raise questions about whether such displays are an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The central question in both cases is whether the Ten Commandments are an integral part of America's legal and cultural history.



It is about time the Supreme Court took up this issue. Here again I hope the court rules against those anti religious zealots that want the statues removed. The statutes or tablets do not hurt anyone, they stand for what America was built on and that is the freedom of religion. No one is forcing them to look at or read them, yet they persist in arguing this is the government establishing a religion. Individuals are doing nothing more then expressing their first amendment rights when they display things that most Americans believe in, what is wrong with that?

This may turn out to be one of the most important years in the Supreme Courts history when you consider they are hearing several very important cases this session. I do believe they also have the Pledge of Allegiance on the docket this session, however no date has yet been set.


Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com

[edit on 2/27/2005 by shots]

[edit on 2/27/2005 by shots]

[edit on 2/27/2005 by shots]

The problem is that like everything is repercussions about everything we do, for one action a reaction, if the commandments are allow to be display in public buildings then it will open the door for all kind of other things to be display also.

You can not have it all, one thing will lead to other things, beside every religion in the US will have the right to have public viewings of their believes also that will entitle them too.

I guess my question would be does the government have a first amendment right to take religious positions and express itself?

Originally posted by shots
Individuals are doing nothing more then expressing their first amendment rights when they display things that most Americans believe in, what is wrong with that?

I don't think anyone doubts that "individuals" have that right. Except when I was coming along people used to get really upset about "government endorsed" expressions like "Piss Christ", the work of an individual awarded some recognition and National Endowment support to continue work. Good artist. Unique expression. "What's wrong with that?"

Well it offended some people. The same ones I imagine that want this art work in place no matter who it offends.

Government supported "religious or anti-religious" expression aside, it's not uncommon for people to get together and complain or protest about any government expression.

Public art deemed too revealing, immoral, promoting of stereotypes, or how about just ugly and expensive are all common targets of ridicule and protest. In fact, in the 80's I recall a conservative body led by Jesse Helms wanting none of it! Art was supposed to be a private matter either supported entirely by the free market outside of government or or not at all... said the "old" conservative.

Here's what I don't get - The people for this thing now (conservatives according to the article)...

...a 6-foot granite monument on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol bearing the words "I am the Lord thy God"

Want a monument on the government inscribed "I am the Lord thy God?" How big-brother creepy is that? :shk:

I'd say that's not a very traditional conservative perspective, but I understand it's been there since "The Fraternal Order of Eagles" went about God'ing up lots of government space in the 1960's. So what were they? The first Neo-cons?

Just very strange to me. Golden claves, false idols, authoritarian government endorsements and all that.

And this man...

State Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Catholic who keeps a photograph in his office showing him meeting Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II, will defend the Texas monument.

"I hope and believe the United States Supreme Court is not going to force agnosticism upon the people of this state and this country," Abbott said. "The First Amendment was never intended to remove all religious expression from the public square."

He really needs to learn the difference in having no position and ramming one down peoples throats. Remaining secular is not endorsing agnosticsm.

If he really thinks having no statue is an endorsement of agnosticism, then he just lost his case. Because then it would follow that having a statue must promote governing by a Supreme Being selected by the "Fraternal Order of Eagles" and endorsed by the government.

But I guess he concedes that. Part of the overt neo-con movement to Christ up government. I still can't believe we broke over 200 years of seperation tradition to fund faith based inititives with tax money. :shk:

"What's wrong with that?" said the "new" conservative. (sigh)

[edit on 27-2-2005 by RANT]

Rant

I feel your frustration. If today, the Christians were given free reign over this country, how long do you think it would take for mandatory prayer in schools?
How long before we start forcing muslims andother denominations into separate classes with a pressure to switch religions.
How long before kids are taught to turn in their dads for pissing in the backyard
How long before the mailman is forced to approve of what you leave outside. Thsese things are happening now, but how long before people start going to jail for not being Christian? Just take a look at christian history. it's ugly.

Realistically you can't complain ... look at our time format.... 2005 AD? ...

Shots, it's not because you don't want your government to USE religion that you are "anti-religious". There is a huge difference between political power and faith, adn the fact is that faith has been used at many times in the past by the authorities in order to put the masses into line and move their agenda forward... Ever heard of the Crusades? Or what about Bush invoking "God" when launching his War on Terror in the Middle-East? And franly, do you really think that's appropriate to put your hand down on a Bible in a court where you have to submit to the laws of man and not the laws of God? State has nothing to do with religion.

Originally posted by Echtelion
Shots, it's not because you don't want your government to USE religion that you are "anti-religious".

State has nothing to do with religion.

First I am not anti religious, I am against the minority that are anti religous. Why should I be prevented from having a picture in my office that shows me with lets say the Pope or any religious figure. If I believe in him I have every right to display that picture. The same goes with having a model or statue of christ or a cross on the very same desk.

These so called zealots have everyone running and hidding when it comes to Christmas or haven't you noticed? Hell people cannot even put a Christmas tree up or any decoration in store windows that depict anything related to Christ at christmas, they have gone to far.

I would not object to them displaying what they want when their holiday season is present, that is there right.

Under a democracy the majority rules and the majority of Americans are Christian. Why should the majority be told by a select minority what we can or cannot do?

This country got along just fine with no complaints about the use of the word god or displaying christmas scenes for 200+ years until a few athesists came along backed by usless organiztions like the ACLU why should I or anyother christian have to change just for them?

Originally posted by shots
This country got along just fine with no complaints about the use of the word god or displaying christmas scenes for 200+ years until a few athesists came along backed by usless organiztions like the ACLU why should I or anyother christian have to change just for them?

Uh, you don't have to change just for them. Isn't this about government sponsored public religious endorsement? Not personal expression? Ironic as it is, should you ever really feel as though the government is stiffling your personal expression or religious beliefs you better hope that "useless organization" the ACLU is still around.

Anyway (merely fyi), your post inspired a little side investigation on this so called "heritage" of giant honking God art endorsed by the government in public places.

America... A Christian Nation (established 1943)

[edit on 27-2-2005 by RANT]

Originally posted by dnero6911
Realistically you can't complain ... look at our time format.... 2005 AD? ...

How many people actually use that monkier anymore? Very few.........

AAAAAAAARGHH! Stop it stop it stop it stop it. Id ike to see the day when other faiths try to put things like this on public lands. You will NEVER see say a Jewish set of laws carved into stone in a supreme court building. NEVER. This is a combination of church and state. But of course this is Ws country now. We will continue to have Christianity crammed down our throats for some time to come. The stone will end up right back where it started.

This is just stupid. The 10 commandmants are a part of everyones life whether you all like it or not. You dont have to be a Christian or a Catholic to know right from wrong. Even if you dont believe in God, can anyone actually argue that they are not good rules to live by? If you dont believe in God or the Bible, why cant you just overlook the whole Moses on the mountain and see the 10 commandments for what they are. 10 rules to live a good life by. So what if you dont think there is a heaven. Does that mean you should act like an arse while you bide your time here and annoy the rest of us?

Furthermore, the 10 commandments are an essential part of our legal system every commandment can be found in one form or another in the books of law. Though not regularly attributed to the 10 commandments, the same meanings are there. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not commit murder. Thou shall respect thy father and mother. There are laws that say pretty much the same thing. I'm so sick of these anti religous weenies attempting to get everyone else to shield them from what they dont want to hear. If you dont like it, dont listen. If you dont believe it, go where people feel the same way you do.

Originally posted by SonofSpy
You will NEVER see say a Jewish set of laws carved into stone in a supreme court building. NEVER.

Uh, that's what the 10 commandments are.

Kidfinger, where exactly are the laws against adultery? Last time I checked there are no laws against coveting or worshipping false gods.

There are good rules in there, but if you can't figure out the major ones like no killing, no stealing, having them posted in public areas isn't going to help.

Just face the facts, it is religious, it has no business being in courtrooms.

Keep it in your church.

So what if you think there is a heaven. Maybe you shouldn't be annoying us.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
This is just stupid. The 10 commandmants are a part of everyones life whether you all like it or not. You dont have to be a Christian or a Catholic to know right from wrong. Even if you dont believe in God, can anyone actually argue that they are not good rules to live by?

Commandment #1: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

I guess "even if you don't believe in God" you can argue with that one.

And let's not push that Judao/Christian myth as being essential to our legal system any further.

As Jefferson tried to tell you ("though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth") the basis of US law is NOT Christianty:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Further knowing the reality of the situation that the "monuments" found their way into public space quite recently during the 1940's to 70's injection of God into government to combat "juvenille delinquency" and Communism and it's not some recent development of political correctness backlash against them, but that they were incorrect and revisionist in the first place as per founding father's smarter than you or I, what is "just stupid" again?

The answer is that they were ever put up in the first place, and that such recent violations should even evoke an ounce of defense from some false perspective of 'heritage' or history.

A 6 foot granite monument on the Texas Capitol saying "I am the Lord Thy God."

Huh? I knew they partied in the 60's but what were they thinking?

Christians should be tearing that blasphemy down themselves, not defending it.

[edit on 27-2-2005 by RANT]

It would be a good step in creating a more tolerant land and world. If America moves to become even more secular it will help our image as we are commonly seen as an extreme fundamentalist organization too. Albiet not Islamic, but Right Wing Neo Conservative Christian.

Actually, Im not a Catholic or a Christian. I DONT go to church, and I even drive a little fast sometimes So if it doesnt bother me, then why is it bothering anyone else? My God people. It is just words. Are they going to jump out of the stone and bite you? Do you not know where you stand in life? Are you not secure enough in your own beliefs that just because you are exposed to someone elses beliefes, you become offended? This is rediculas to a point that it really starts to not make much sense.

I can understand that some of us are a little less tolerant than others. I can even understand that not everyone is going to have the same beliefes. What I cant understand is why 10 rules that are followed in one form or another in most every major religon and social aspect of law and life are such an offence to anyone other than the self absorbed.

One more time for those that may have missed it. Im not a Catholic or a Christian, and I do not participate in attending church, mass, christian retreats or any other organised religon for that matter. So please dont come back with the old and stale: Take your God elswhere, or something similar that was said before.

One last thing and Im going to go eat dinner. It is up to you as a person to accept or reject any religon. While you might reject it, you should still respect the fact that there are going to be ten thousand to every one person that doesnt believe in God or the Bible here in America. You have to chose to believe. If you choose not to believe, then so be it. I dont think anyone will really be that affected by it one way or the other. I mean, c'mon. What kind of trauma is a big piece of rock with 10 sentences really going to cause somebody that actually has a grip on reality?

Originally posted by SonofSpy
You will NEVER see say a Jewish set of laws carved into stone in a supreme court building. NEVER.

Hmmmm..... Really? Better look again...

They are already there in the form of the ten commandments.

Sorry I did not read ahead and did not realize someone had already posted the same comment however it does need repeating to Deny Ignorance.

[edit on 2/27/2005 by shots]

Originally posted by Kidfinger
This is just stupid. The 10 commandmants are a part of everyones life whether you all like it or not. You dont have to be a Christian or a Catholic to know right from wrong.

Snipped to save space

All good points Kidfinger. Great post.

I seem to recall in the Bible, where Jesus mentioned to evryone that "Ye are all Gods".
Failing the belief in that statement, You're ALL bloody well wrong!!!!
The entire statement "I am the Lord thy God" is totally Adverb/Verb whereby the words Lord and God are VERBS.
Show me in ANY dictionary worldwide, the Words "Lord" and "God" as a VERB and I'll give you ALL a million dollars US.
END OF STORY! OK!!! Have a nice educational day!

Well, what I see in this is if it is ruled ok to be displayed, then all the other religens can have there symbols with ideas written on them displayed also. Such as the Jews, Muslems, Pagens, Budist, will all be entitled to equel space to have something displayed. On the other hand, if the ruleing goes against the display, then I wonder if some cry babby will complain that religes symboles are displayed at national cemetaries. So I guess it will all come down to the ballence between the freedoms and the limits put on them. I hope we have some hones and senceable people on the supreem cort.