Posting God's laws on government property

[FlaGator]

Since the last post on the Ten Commandments was so popular I thought we try it again with this little article on the displaying of the Ten Commandments on public property.



How to apply the First Amendment to the Ten Commandments? Why does the Constitution's prohibition of "establishment of religion" so often seem to conflict with its mandate of "free exercise of religion." Legal and religious scholars seem to agree on what the law says (http://divinity.wfu.edu/rpa/aboutstatement.html), but no one seems to know for sure how it should be applied case by case.

Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will offer some clarity this year.

The 5-3 vote by the Arizona Senate Appropriations Committee comes a week before the high court is scheduled to discuss (http://newsok.com/ten-commandments-display-will-get-high-court-review/article/3439338) what to do about a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Haskell County (Okla.) Courthouse.

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Oklahoma display violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. (A federal judge had ruled that it didn't.) That case should not be confused with last month's decision by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that a Ten Commandments monument at the Grayson County (Ky.) Courthouse did not violate the Establishment Clause. (A federal judge had ruled that it did.)

But don't blame the lower courts for being confused. In 2005, the Supremes issued two seemingly contradictory rulings on similar public displays of the Decalogue:
The court ruled 5-4 in favor (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-1500) of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas State Capitol. "The inclusion of the Ten Commandments monument in this group has a dual significance, partaking of both religion and government," the majority wrote.

The court also ruled 5-4 against (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-1693) a Ten Commandments monument at a Kentucky courthouse (McCreary County). The majority held that the government had acted with "the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing


This whole story is here (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/02/posting_gods_laws_on_government_property.html?hpid =talkbox1)

[AmPat]

These buildings belong to the people who paid for them, right? If those people decide by majority that they don't want it, so be it. Of course there is no law against it unless you buy into liberal brain fog interprtation of the Constitution. I have yet to see an official religion established by the US gov't. :cool:

[FlaGator]

These buildings belong to the people who paid for them, right? If those people decide by majority that they don't want it, so be it. Of course there is no law against it unless you buy into liberal brain fog interprtation of the Constitution. I have yet to see an official religion established by the US gov't. :cool:

The First Amendment states:


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.

This I've never understood:

Those in charge of a state court house or some other state building, in some form, decide to display the Ten Commandments. Congress (of the Federal nature) has made no law respecting the establishment of a religion or have the made a law to prohibit the exercise of a religion. So how was the first amendment violated? Now if Congress was to make a law saying that a state or individual can't display the Ten Commandments or that they must display the Ten Commandments then the Constitution has been violated. Just because one group of people don't like something this does not in and of itself prohibit the actions of another group.

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

I agree with FLA. States should be allowed to do what they want with their buildings.
However, I don't think that any religion should be officially promoted at the Federal level. I'm not saying the President shouldn't say God Bless America or recognize the different holidays but I don't think the Ten Commandments should be put on any federal, public building.

[AmPat]

The First Amendment states:



This I've never understood:

Those in charge of a state court house or some other state building, in some form, decide to display the Ten Commandments. Congress (of the Federal nature) has made no law respecting the establishment of a religion or have the made a law to prohibit the exercise of a religion. So how was the first amendment violated? Now if Congress was to make a law saying that a state or individual can't display the Ten Commandments or that they must display the Ten Commandments then the Constitution has been violated. Just because one group of people don't like something this does not in and of itself prohibit the actions of another group.

If any violation of the law was made, it is by those trying to rid the buildings of the Commandments. They are "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[MrsSmith]

That "wall of separation" is seemingly intended to drive all Christian thought off public property whilst allowing the government to limit free speech by threat of taxation, require religious organizations to hire those that do not hold to their stated values, perform marriages and adoptions for those that are living far outside their basic rules...

The wall is perceived as 40 feet tall for the Christians, and 4 inches for the government.

[Constitutionally Speaking]

That "wall of separation" is seemingly intended to drive all Christian thought off public property whilst allowing the government to limit free speech by threat of taxation, require religious organizations to hire those that do not hold to their stated values, perform marriages and adoptions for those that are living far outside their basic rules...

The wall is perceived as 40 feet tall for the Christians, and 4 inches for the government.


If you look into history, Jefferson's wall REALLY was a one way wall.

If not, then how could Jefferson justify giving federal money for missionaries to the American Indians??

It also was ONLY for the Federal congress - (since that is specifically what the Constitution deals with) Indeed, many states (most in fact) had religious REQUIREMENTS for officeholders.

[MrsSmith]

If you look into history, Jefferson's wall REALLY was a one way wall.

If not, then how could Jefferson justify giving federal money for missionaries to the American Indians??

It also was ONLY for the Federal congress - (since that is specifically what the Constitution deals with) Indeed, many states (most in fact) had religious REQUIREMENTS for officeholders.

Somehow, in the last few decades, we've managed to flip it around...