 |
| |
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
The other point is really the issue though, whether a monument containing the ten commandments is in an of itself contrary to the first amendment? Arguments that our laws are secular and not based on judeo-christian religious laws are specious. |
There's very little judeo-christian input; much of what you may think of is roman law that the church adopted. The old ecclesia romana vivit lege romana.
Considering that the jury system goes (with some other influences) back to the germanic ding and its sacred oaths, it would make more sense to establish a monument to Thor and Odin.
But let's go through the 10 commandments (random translation from the web):
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
Not exactly in modern law.
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
Not exactly in modern law.
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
Not exactly in modern law.
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
Not exactly in modern law.
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
Part of family law; can be found in most legal systems.
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
Part of criminal law; can be found in virtually every legal system.
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
Not exactly in modern law.
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
Part of criminal law; can be found in virtually every legal system.
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
Part of criminal or procedural law; can be found in virtually every legal system.
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Not exactly in modern law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
Berzerker, I have no idea what your deal is with "Congress shall make no law..." First off, why do you assume that the 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to only state legislatures? After all, the 1st says "Congress," not "The legislature." So, literally taking "Congress" and "law" in the context of state civil liberty issues makes no sense.
Secondly, it doesn't logically follow from the 14th Amendment. The due process clause says that no state shall deprive a person of liberty without due process (paraphrasing). That's "state," not "legislature." Meaning all parts of the state, including the courts. And liberty is interpreted to be those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including the right to have a state that doesn't respect an establishment of religion.
If the First Amendment should apply only to federal/state legislatures, it'd be time to militantly overthrow such an oppressive government. 
Honestly, I don't know how you could possibly support the legitimacy of a government whose courts and executive institutions don't need to respect freedom of speech or religion, etc. Would you really say "ok, fine" if the police decide to arrest you, and the courts lock you up for being a libertarian?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
MtG - quote:
So there! All it takes is an executive order by the Governor, and we can have the official Baptist Church of the Christian State of Alabama, but since there's no law, there's no establishment of religion. 
And anyone who says different is trashing the Constitution.  |
The governor of Alabama can say whatever he wants, but such an "order" needs the support of the state legislature through actual legislation if it requires anything of the citizens. There are two kinds of "Executive Orders", one deals with "administrative actions" and operation of the executive branch. Another, unconstitutional group, deals with matters beyond the scope of the executive branch - like when Clinton turned a large chunk of Utah into a national park (or whatever it's called). Congress lets these orders stand because the 2 parties share power and will get their chance to pass executive orders in the future.
And my comment about Congress and the courts trashing the Constitution refers to the much broader attack they've launched on all sorts of matters, not just this issue. If you want to deny that they have trashed the Constitution, then I'd have to doubt your reading comprehension. Hell, if James Madison was alive today, he'd have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting nominated, much less confirmed for the SCOTUS and I suspect you know that. Would you like to do some research to find out when Presidents began issuing executive orders and when the first order served the same function as a law? I'll bet the latter didn't occur until long after the time of George Washington...
civman - quote:
As MtG pointed out, administrative actions are a form of law. |
He never cited one person who would be punished for violating this "law", much less that an administrative action ("law") was made by Moore - no proof of anything to support his argument, nada.
quote:
For example, when the EPA sets an official policy, it is law. Only the courts or Congress can overrule it, and everyone must follow it. |
How did the EPA come into existence? Legislation? The EPA's alleged authority comes from congressional legislation. And those aren't "administrative actions", they're regulations. Furthermore, those regulations are unconstitutional too because the Constitution did not authorise Congress to empower bureaucrats to legislate via regulation. But that's how dishonest lawyers work, if the Constitution says all legislation begins in the House, then these lawyers simply appropriate other words and give them the force of law while not calling them laws thereby subverting the restrainsts ostensibly imposed by the Constitution. NAFTA, according to them, was not a treaty, but a "trade agreement". What's the difference? Treaties require 2/3rds of the Senate whereas a "trade agreement" took only majorities of both bodies. Where in the Constitution did they find that? Naturally, I reject all this Orwelian doublespeak you guys insist on citing to make your case. 
quote:
Similarly, although placing a 5000 pound rock does not require anyone to follow anything, it still is an official and enforced policy and thus is a law. |
The key word there is "require". It doesn't matter if it's an "offical" act, read what others have posted about the "official acts" of the Founders regarding religion. Where do you think "Christmas" and "Thanksgiving" came from?
quote:
After all, IIRC the due process clause says "No state," not "No state legislature". As a part of the state government of Alabama, Moore must obey the Bill of Rights. |
Continue the quote, it says "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". So, what part of a state government makes laws? The state legislature... And which privilege or immunity was abridged? Btw, that doesn't appear in the due process clause, just the same amendment.
quote:
First, no one ever claimed that it fully "establishes" any individual religion in the narrow sense. However, it clearly endorses the Judeo-christian school of religions. |
So what? Did Alabama pass a law that requires citizens to have no other God? Did Moore? There has to be a law and there has to be citizens subject to fine or prison (punishment) for violating said law. The key to understanding what "establish" means are the preceding words, and a "law" is required.
quote:
Secondly, SCOTUS is clearly interpreting two laws: the 1st and 14th amendments. Their conclusion follows logically from them, and even though you may disagree with it, they are still interpreting and not making law. |
Hardly logical, they've turned the word "law" into sentiment as in "Congress shall offer no sentiment"...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
Ramo - quote:
Berzerker, I have no idea what your deal is with "Congress shall make no law..." First off, why do you assume that the 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to only state legislatures? After all, the 1st says "Congress," not "The legislature." So, literally taking "Congress" and "law" in the context of state civil liberty issues makes no sense. |
1) Because a law is required before there can be respect for or establishment of religion - "shall make no law". There has to be a law (or some euphemism that looks and walks like a law).
2) Congress is the legislative branch, that's why it says "Congress shall make no law" - and by extension, the "law"making bodies of the states - state legislatures - are prohibited for the same reason. It doesn't make sense to say the President or Governor "shall make no law" since they are charged with enforcing laws, not making them.
quote:
Secondly, it doesn't logically follow from the 14th Amendment. The due process clause says that no state shall deprive a person of liberty without due process (paraphrasing). That's "state," not "legislature." Meaning all parts of the state, including the courts. |
You're leaving off the first part of that sentence where the prohibition is on laws, and "states" don't make laws, state legislatures make laws. The relevant sentence mentions "states" because there are prohibitions on different branches of the state governments, "laws" dealing with legislatures and "due process" dealing with the judicial and executive branches where laws are enforced. The question at hand is whether or not any legislature made a law since that is the langauage in the 1st Amendment, due process is irrelevant to this issue...
quote:
And liberty is interpreted to be those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including the right to have a state that doesn't respect an establishment of religion. |
Read the 9th Amendment, it says we have unenumerated rights. And this right you claim we have is a right to not have our state legislature pass "laws" respecting an establishment of religion - there was no law passed by any state legislature.
quote:
If the First Amendment should apply only to federal/state legislatures, it'd be time to militantly overthrow such an oppressive government. |
Why? The other branches enforce laws and require "laws" to act so mentioning them in prohibitions on making laws is illogical.
quote:
Honestly, I don't know how you could possibly support the legitimacy of a government whose courts and executive institutions don't need to respect freedom of speech or religion, etc. |
How does this monument violate your freedom of speech or religion?
quote:
Would you really say "ok, fine" if the police decide to arrest you, and the courts lock you up for being a libertarian? |
That would require a "law" prohibiting my being a libertarian, no law is involved here. No one is being punished for anything, it's a piece of stone sitting on public land.
quote:
In other words, Congress shall make no law about a church. That's how I'm intepreting it, and that is the valid interpretation. |
While that isn't the actual language and since people can practice religion without any church, I'd say that's a stretch. But let us deal with the Founders time and their fears - and they did fear national religions and churches even though they did not prohibit state churches. Certainly you aren't saying a valid interpretation of the 1st Amendment would allow Congress to pass laws prohibiting any religion who's adherents don't believe in churches.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Because a law is required before there can be respect for or establishment of religion - "shall make no law". There has to be a law (or some euphemism that looks and walks like a law). |
Like court administrative practices. Don't see how that's so different from a law passed by a legislature.
quote:
Congress is the legislative branch, that's why it says "Congress shall make no law" - and by extension, the "law"making bodies of the states - state legislatures - are prohibited for the same reason. It doesn't make sense to say the President or Governor "shall make no law" since they are charged with enforcing laws, not making them. |
We're no longer living in the 18th century. There are things like executive orders that are equivalent to laws in many ways.
quote:
Read the 9th Amendment, it says we have unenumerated rights. |
The courts don't take that position.
quote:
And this right you claim we have is a right to not have our state legislature pass "laws" respecting an establishment of religion - there was no law passed by any state legislature. |
That's irrelevent. Once again, if you really want to take it literally, there are no state or local congresses.
quote:
Why? The other branches enforce laws and require "laws" to act so mentioning them in prohibitions on making laws is illogical. |
Except there are laws on the books that are quite frightening, and the only thing stopping me from being arrested is that the police and courts are subject to the First Amendment. I don't want to be picked up because some ******* cops and judges want to use the "criminal anarchy" law in Texas.
quote:
How does this monument violate your freedom of speech or religion? |
I never said it did.
quote:
That would require a "law" prohibiting my being a libertarian, no law is involved here. No one is being punished for anything, it's a piece of stone sitting on public land. |
Have you taken a look at the US code lately? Like the Espionage Act is still law, that for instance could easily get you thrown in prison. If the executive and judicial branches weren't constrained by the First as you believe they should be.
quote:
While that isn't the actual language and since people can practice religion without any church, I'd say that's a stretch. But let us deal with the Founders time and their fears - and they did fear national religions and churches even though they did not prohibit state churches. Certainly you aren't saying a valid interpretation of the 1st Amendment would allow Congress to pass laws prohibiting any religion who's adherents don't believe in churches. |
A church isn't a physical thing in this context. Like the "Catholic Church" isn't the Vatican and its properties. In the sense used by the First, it's merely any religious sect. It was designed to mitigate using the feds to contribute to pissing matches between the various denominations (so the Anglicans couldn't fund missionaries to Catholic areas of the country, etc.).
quote:
So congress (i.e. a government) couldnt make a law about the maximum height that a church could be? |
See above.
quote:
It does not seem to me that you are using respect to mean "about" |
Why?
quote:
So congress can establish a religion but cant show respect for religion. IMO, that's exactly the opposite of the meaning of the 1st amendment. |
No, it can't do either. That's why I wrote "but the former falls under the latter."
quote:
"an establishment of religion" = a church
No! Establishment as used here (200 odd years ago) is a verb. |
No, it's a noun. A verb doesn't have an article before it. If it were used in the sense that you refer to, it would say "Congress shall not establish religion."
Besides, what's the danger of a state church besides promoting one religion over another? After all, no religion can be suppressed, since we have the freedom of religion clause. It's only logical that the establishment clause refers to state support of religions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Well, Iustitia and other roman gods/goddesses became merely symbolic figures in the Renaissance, they no longer carry religious connotations. In 2000 years, you can have all the Moseses and 10 commandments in courthouses you want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"HO, so you are indeed endorsing a double standard?"
Only if you see the 10 commandments as allegoric. I find that a bit difficult to argue, as hudeo-christian religion is a bit more alive than greco-roman religion, and it includes things like honouring the sabbath, which has little to do with our legal systems.
"BTW, it was my understanding that the Goddess Justitia was on display at courthouses in the Roman Empire."
Not that I know of. It was a personification of justice which could be seen as godly, but it was not that common.
"I suspect that if Justitia was reintroduced in the Renaissance, it was only because civil courthouses themselves were reintroduced at this time as well. Right?"
Civil courthouses were "reintroduced" earlier. Has more to with the love for everything roman and greek.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Then I simply do not understand how you can have no objection to the display of the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court of the United States and similarly object to its display in the Alabama Supreme Court.
You are mixing in a lot of Judge Moore's "intent" and "purpose" with every statement and objection. Do you think the Supreme Court of the United States is going to make the same "distinctions" when and if it decides this case. It simply cannot rule that a display of the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional per se without automatically ordering the destruction of its own building.
The Ten Commandments is acknowledged by the Supreme Court itself as a fundamental document in Western Law. It cannot condemn the display of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Court on a per se basis.
|
Two key things are that the Ten Commandment in the Supreme Court building does NOT show any of the actual commandments, just numbers. Another key is the ten commandments at the Supreme Court are relatively small and size and their placement high above ground level means they are not particularly noticible. The prominent placement of the ten commandments monument in the Alabama court makes things quite different. The Supreme Court has definately NOT aknowledged the Ten Commandsments as a fundimental document in Western law. It has at most suggested it might be an inspiration for American law. If it was actually considered a fundimental document, polytheism would be against the law along with covetting you neighbors property without actually taking actions based on this thought.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-08-2003 10:37
|