02-07-2003 17:22									#31
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Your example is wrong. "Not selling booze on Sundays" is completely free of religious connotation (even if it was derived from the rules of a religion), thus it is perfectly constitutional. Give a correct example, and you'll be right. But I don't think there is one...

"Blue"laws prohibiting businesses from opening on sundays?

BTW, I don't see how the TC's violate the establishment clause anymore than the government invoking God by name in any other venue. I always thought the establishment clause simply prevented the government from establishing a national church or specific, officially sanctioned religion. Seems a bit overinterpreted.

	02-07-2003 17:28									#32
	Inflate your Upload Space

DinoDoc -- my latest post is at the bottom of page 1 in case you miss it.

	02-07-2003 17:37									#33
	Tired of ads?

Surely the point here is that not everyone is smart enough to dismiss this piece of stone as irrelevant, or to debate it on poly. It is likely that some people, who are not christians, will take it to mean that they will be less favourably treated in that court that a christian (and with a judge like the idiot who had it put up they may have a point).

That means that they perceive themselves under pressure to adopt a christian religion in order to obtain fair justice. That is not a situation of "freedom from religion". Sounds like the right decision has been made.

	02-07-2003 19:27									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines when you place the 10 commandments outside of a courthouse. Gee, what could it possibly mean? Kinda like the blindfolded woman holding the scales.

In any case, public property is subject to public policy. There's no shortage of private property to plunk down this kind of thing. Freedom of expression doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want whereever you want whenever you want however you want.

	02-07-2003 20:53									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MrFun So what's the difference if capital punishment is murder?

The porblem is that "murder" is defined as illegal killing. By definition that excludes capital punishment. And this is clear in the bible, given what the punishements for various acts are, many of which lead to death.

	02-07-2003 21:00									#36
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Damn... GePap beat me to it .

	02-07-2003 21:10									#37
	Tired of ads?

quote: Amendment I Congress 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.

So because this guy is a judge, he can't practice his religion?

He did not seek to establish a religion (and even if he did, he is not the Congress)

He was excersizing his right to free speech (Which the government quashed)

BTW, The ten commandments are not "Christian", they are Jewish and Christian.

Realistically, it is not a good idea for a judge to push his religious agenda, but unconstitutional? This is another example of the court imposing its social agenda upon the people.

As to the "establishment" clause...where does it address religion?

quote: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

	02-07-2003 21:37									#38
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 So because this guy is a judge, he can't practice his religion?

Sure he can, however judicial rulings in the past have ruled that if practicing your religion equates to sticking it in everyone's face, you are in fact denying the other guy his freedom of religion.

quote: He did not seek to establish a religion (and even if he did, he is not the Congress)

What do you call posting religious laws in a place that exists to uphold secular law? Again the judge is the one making the association between his religion and his secular duties.

quote: He was excersizing his right to free speech (Which the government quashed)

Free speech has never been an absolute right. For instance, you can't hold Christian services in a Synagogue. Public property is subject to public policy.

quote: BTW, The ten commandments are not "Christian", they are Jewish and Christian.

Oh, well, that's alright then...

quote: As to the "establishment" clause...where does it address religion?

Er, you quoted it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

	02-07-2003 21:43									#39
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The courthouse is public property, not private property of the judge, and the judge is an agent of the court, a court which is part of the government. In his official duties as judge he can't be making religious pronouncements.

	02-07-2003 23:38									#40
	Support Apolyton

I don't disagree that this is public policy or that it is a good policy. I simply state that this was not a constitutional issue. It is the court setting social policy that made it a constitutional issue

quote: Again the judge is the one making the association between his religion and his secular duties.

But making an association is not the establishment of a religion. Furthermore, Congress is the only entity constitutionally prevented from establishing a religion.

quote: Free speech has never been an absolute right. For instance, you can't hold Christian services in a Synagogue. Public property is subject to public policy.

I agree. This situation should be addressed with the same laws that control your example. It is not a constitutional issue.

quote: Er, you quoted it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Er, That's the 1st Amendment not the establishment clause.

GePap:

quote: The courthouse is public property, not private property of the judge, and the judge is an agent of the court, a court which is part of the government. In his official duties as judge he can't be making religious pronouncements.

I agree. The point I am trying to make is that the court overstepped its mandate when calling this a constitutional issue. This is social engineering by the court and that is not what they were designed to do. (Even if I agree with the outcome, I will disagree with the process!)

	02-07-2003 23:44									#41
	Tired of ads?

This particular judge has long been a problem in Alabama, which of course, has made him extremely popular there. I'm sure Bush will try and appoint him to SCOTUS.

	02-07-2003 23:44									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: But making an association is not the establishment of a religion. Furthermore, Congress is the only entity constitutionally prevented from establishing a religion.

are you serious? tell me you made a mistake typing this... Does that mean Congress is the only entity that is prevented from violating free speech, expression, etc... Bullsh1t

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Every government entity must follow it.

Berz, Floyd: aren't you guys state's rights advocates? I'm sure if the SCOTUS struck down the dry laws, you'd be screaming bloody murder for state's rights. Give me a break.

	02-07-2003 23:59									#43
	Remove this text

Sava, did you even read my first post? Apparently not from your answer. I also quoted EXACTLY what the constitution says.

	03-07-2003 00:00									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 I don't disagree that this is public policy or that it is a good policy. I simply state that this was not a constitutional issue. It is the court setting social policy that made it a constitutional issue

Nope, it's a constitutional issue.

"SECTION 3

Religious freedom.
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles
"
Don't recognize it? I didn't either until a few minutes ago. It's from Alabama's state constitution.

quote: But making an association is not the establishment of a religion

It is a de facto establishment as opposed to a explicitly stated establishment. Because law can't cover every particular point, we have courts to inject doses of reality. This is the essence of a real justice system, one that can see through technicalities.

	03-07-2003 00:06									#45
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Er, That's the 1st Amendment not the establishment clause.

NO!!!! What you are referring to (wrongly) as the "establishment clause" is the preamble. The establishment clause is the part of the first amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

	03-07-2003 00:10									#46
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by gunkulator Nope, it's a constitutional issue. "SECTION 3 Religious freedom. That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles " Don't recognize it? I didn't either until a few minutes ago. It's from Alabama's state constitution.

Can't argue with that one

quote: It is a de facto establishment as opposed to a explicitly stated establishment

I would think that there would have to be some form of compelling someone to do something for this to be true. (Even if it was as minor a statement that "they should look at that stone on their way out". It does not seem to me that a static display is in any way a de facto establishment of religion. In any event, Amendment 1 says specifically that Congress is barred and not the judiciary.

	03-07-2003 00:12									#47
	Support Apolyton

Yes, but the courts have always interpreted it as "the government".

	03-07-2003 00:14									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Yes, but the courts have always interpreted it as "the government".

A judge is an agent of "the government", thus he becomes "the government".

	03-07-2003 00:16									#49
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Yes, but the courts have always interpreted it as "the government".

A good thing they don't choose to interpret it as "the individual" huh?

	03-07-2003 00:16									#50
	Support Apolyton

Were you trying to contest my statement? I was explaining why it wasn't limited to Congress.

	03-07-2003 00:18									#51
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Were you trying to contest my statement? I was explaining why it wasn't limited to Congress.

No, I agree with your statement. My point is that the court is using and has used interpretation to set a social agenda in the country. I feel that some of this issues would be better served at the legislative level where open discussion and accountability are present.

	03-07-2003 00:20									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 A good thing they don't choose to interpret it as "the individual" huh?

When the guy wears a robe, he is bound by the duties of the goernment and its limitations. A judge could not post a huge banner advocating the election of one specific candidate in his court, why this symbol of one religious tradition?

At home and out of his robes, he is free to be joe blow citizen.

	03-07-2003 00:21									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 No, I agree with your statement. My point is that the court is using and has used interpretation to set a social agenda in the country. I feel that some of this issues would be better served at the legislative level where open discussion and accountability are present.

I was talking to GePap... we must have posted at the same time

	03-07-2003 00:34									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

GePap, What I am trying to get across is that the judiciary does not need to engage in interpretation. It should adhere to strict construction. Why? Because their is NO appeal from the judicial branch other than a constitutional amendment (which itself would be subject to interpretation!). Un less the Constitution specifically states it, then the court should not rule on it. Legislators are fully capable of mandating that the government should not be involved with the association of religion. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution says the "Congress". Beyond that it sayeth not.

	03-07-2003 00:35									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

skywalker -

quote: Your example is wrong. "Not selling booze on Sundays" is completely free of religious connotation (even if it was derived from the rules of a religion), thus it is perfectly constitutional. Give a correct example, and you'll be right. But I don't think there is one...

You can't be serious, why not ban selling booze on Tuesdays? Why just on Sunday? Btw, how can blue laws be completely free of religious connotation but still derive from religious rules?

Sava -

quote: Berz, Floyd: aren't you guys state's rights advocates?

I'm not, states have powers, people have rights. But Floyd and I do recognise the 10th Amendment as part of the Constitution.

quote: I'm sure if the SCOTUS struck down the dry laws, you'd be screaming bloody murder for state's rights. Give me a break.

You seem more inclined to make our arguments for us rather than your own. Since I just said blue laws violate the establishment clause, I'm left wondering how you reached the conclusion I'd scream bloody murder. How does this monument violate your religious freedom? You still haven't answered that one.

	03-07-2003 01:22									#56
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 GePap, What I am trying to get across is that the judiciary does not need to engage in interpretation. It should adhere to strict construction. Why? Because their is NO appeal from the judicial branch other than a constitutional amendment (which itself would be subject to interpretation!). Un less the Constitution specifically states it, then the court should not rule on it. Legislators are fully capable of mandating that the government should not be involved with the association of religion. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution says the "Congress". Beyond that it sayeth not.

A group of individual brought a suit: by that very act, it was up to the courts to decide, and all the courts up to now have backed the plaintiffs in the suit. The judge could appeal yet again to the Supreme Court, which is his last resort. I feel though that he will lose again, ebcuase the plaintiffs are correct, he is breaking the establishment clause by putting this momument to HIS individual religious beliefs in GOVERNMENT property, as a working agent of the court.

	03-07-2003 01:41									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: How does this monument violate your religious freedom? You still haven't answered that one.

I answered this before... you ignored it. I only illustrated the state's rights issue to point out the two-faced arguing I see all too often.

	03-07-2003 01:48									#58
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

It violates people's religious freedom becuase as a symbol in a public building used by the government, one can assume that it is government approved. That no other sysmbols are shown leads one correcty to think :hmmm, the government favors one religious tradition over another. But the government, under our system, shall have no favorites, becuase favoritism means treating citizens differently based on thier religious beliefs.

Either the government puts a sysmbol from each religious tradition in an equal place of honor (difficult at best, specially in this case), or it shows none, which is immenently simple. And no, we are not vioating the judges rights: employers can limit certain forms of expressiopns by thier employees. As a officer of the court and a government employess, while at work the judge has to follow government policy vis a vi. religion.

	03-07-2003 02:10									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker skywalker - You can't be serious, why not ban selling booze on Tuesdays? Why just on Sunday? Btw, how can blue laws be completely free of religious connotation but still derive from religious rules?

Because the rule itself isn't inherently religious. There are secular reasons for its existance. For example, if a majority, or even just a significant number, of people have church on Sundays, it would cause severe problems if they got in trouble for going to church instead of work. Thus, the law is making things convenient for a lot of people, yet not promoting religion.

Plus sunday is a weekend

	03-07-2003 02:11									#60
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 GePap, What I am trying to get across is that the judiciary does not need to engage in interpretation. It should adhere to strict construction. Why? Because their is NO appeal from the judicial branch other than a constitutional amendment (which itself would be subject to interpretation!). Un less the Constitution specifically states it, then the court should not rule on it. Legislators are fully capable of mandating that the government should not be involved with the association of religion. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution says the "Congress". Beyond that it sayeth not.

Interpretation is the PURPOSE of the judiciary...

EDIT: On another note, I'd like to point out that it doesn't MATTER whether or not it violates religious freedom. It matters whether it violotes the Consitution, which also prohibits a state-sponsored religion.