[Flip Flop] Supreme Court: 10 Commandments NOT allowed in courthouses [sometimes]

evilmax17

evilmax17

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
Following ruling barring Ten Commandments displays in courthouses, Supreme Court rules such displays are allowed at state capitols. Details soon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court bars Ten Commandments at courthouses
Monday, June 27, 2005; Posted: 10:29 a.m. EDT (14:29 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

The court's decision was 5-4, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor casting the swing vote.

The decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays -- like their own courtroom frieze -- would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

Other cases

Also Monday, the Supreme Court rejected appeals from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago -- whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.

The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering.

"Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers.

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The Supreme Court also Monday overturned a ruling that required cable operators to open up their high-speed Internet lines to rivals. (Full story)

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
 
I was just going to post this.

Isn't this the biggest bullshit ever?

"Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history."

They are allowed to keep them, but everyone else has to get rid of them, what a bunch of fucking hypocrits. The 10 Commandents are not neutral!!! Dumbasses.

I'm now waiting for the case where a town takes someones land trough eminent domain just so they can build a 10 Commandment statue. It will happen.
 
While I agree with the Ten Commandment decision, I also have to worry that the religious right is now going to be exerting even more pressure on Dubya to nominate a far right justice when an opening arises.
 
It changes the fact that courthouses can't have them, unless you are the Supreme Court. This country keeps surprising me on how fast this country is going down the shiter.
 
Deal God if two of them step down we are so fucked for the next 50 years. I like o'conner she does what she believes.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']WASHINGTON (AP) -- A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.
...

The decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays -- like their own courtroom frieze -- would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.[/QUOTE]

If you ask me, it wouldn't be a bad decision if people were reasonable. I don't have a problem with historical events portrayed in courtrooms, whether they are related to Hammurabi's code, the Ten Commandments, or the Constitution.

The problem is the fundies who try to use any judicial latititude to further their religious agenda.

Note to christians: we get it, you like Jesus Christ and think the world should revolve around the rules as written in the 2-book bible. We have all seen your very clever WWJD paraphernalia, 2000 year old rule lists for earning a spot in after-life paradise, and classification of your spiritual leaders as world-class philosophers -- and let me tell you, we are all really impressed. Just get the Jesus junk out of my face when I'm trying to fix my parking ticket and we'll be cool.
 
While I agree he stepped over the line fron complaining about to bashing, any person that uses it, or wants to use it, in government would be subject. Who cares who originally invented the concept, it's used by multiple religions, and that's all that matters.
 
Thats good that they did that. Hopefully this will be a stride in the right direction for the separation of church and state.
 
[quote name='trytej']Thats good that they did that. Hopefully this will be a stride in the right direction for the separation of church and state.[/QUOTE]

Which of course isn't a provision provided for by the Constitution.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Last time I checked the 10 commandments were given to the Jews, so why are you bashing Christians?[/QUOTE]

Because the Jews aren't the ones trying to force it down everyone else's throats. I guess they're secure enough in their religion that they don't feel the need to push it on others.
 
[quote name='evilmregg']Because the Jews aren't the ones trying to force it down everyone else's throats. I guess they're secure enough in their religion that they don't feel the need to push it on others.[/QUOTE]

Please give me one example where religion is pushed on you and it's forced down your throat.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Please give me one example where religion is pushed on you and it's forced down your throat.[/QUOTE]

Ummm... posting the ten commandments in a courthouse?
 
[quote name='evilmregg']Ummm... posting the ten commandments in a courthouse?[/QUOTE]

How does this effect you directly. Is anyone making you go to church? Attend synagogue? Is anyone requiring you to be baptized? Are you forced into confession? Do you lose societal rights if you don't take communion?

How is this forcing religion down your throat? How are your rights being infringed upon?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']How does this effect you directly. Is anyone making you go to church? Attend synagogue? Is anyone requiring you to be baptized? Are you forced into confession? Do you lose societal rights if you don't take communion?

How is this forcing religion down your throat? How are your rights being infringed upon?[/QUOTE]

When the government chooses one religion or even one type of religion (i.e. monotheistic) over another, such as in a public display in a public, government-run courthouse, it has an effect on everybody who is under the rule of that government. No matter how hard you conservatives close your eyes and wish on a shooting star that it wasn't the case, the founders of our country were explicity against state sponsorship of any one religion. Could have been that whole Church of England thing left a bad taste in their mouths.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']How does this effect you directly. Is anyone making you go to church? Attend synagogue? Is anyone requiring you to be baptized? Are you forced into confession? Do you lose societal rights if you don't take communion?

How is this forcing religion down your throat? How are your rights being infringed upon?[/QUOTE]
It gives the impression that you're being tried under Christian law instead of United States law.

One of the primary functions of the seperation between church and state is to avoid the implication that our country would favor one religion over another (freedom of religion and all, you know).
 
[quote name='evilmregg']When the government chooses one religion or even one type of religion (i.e. monotheistic) over another, such as in a public display in a public, government-run courthouse, it has an effect on everybody who is under the rule of that government. No matter how hard you conservatives close your eyes and wish on a shooting star that it wasn't the case, the founders of our country were explicity against state sponsorship of any one religion. Could have been that whole Church of England thing left a bad taste in their mouths.[/QUOTE]

How does it effect YOU. You said you were having religion forced down YOUR throat. You said you were having religion pushed on YOU.

Tell me, how does this have an effect on you? You haven't named one. Instead you turn around and say conservatives BLAH BLAH BLAH.

You still haven't answered the question. How does the 10 commandments appearing in a courthouse or outside of one have any effect on YOU. I mean, obviously you think this effects your life on a daily basis or you wouldn't be complaining about having religion forced down YOUR throad and having it pushed on YOU.

So tell me, how does this happen.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']It gives the impression that you're being tried under Christian law instead of United States law.

One of the primary functions of the seperation between church and state is to avoid the implication that our country would favor one religion over another (freedom of religion and all, you know).[/QUOTE]

You do understand that the speration of church and state isn't a Constitutional guarantee? You do realize it was a phrase introduced to the American lexicon by a Supreme Court justice, Hugo Black, who was a KKK member and an FDR appointee?

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

Now again, the 10 Commandments is Jewish law, not Christian. They were given to a Jew by the Jewish God. Now would you care to elaborate where Jesus proclaimed any kind of law? Would you like to illustrate "Christian" law? Or are you going to backtrack and admit that the 10 Commandments is indeed Jewish in origin and you really don't know what you're talking about.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']How does it effect YOU. You said you were having religion forced down YOUR throat. You said you were having religion pushed on YOU.

Tell me, how does this have an effect on you? You haven't named one. Instead you turn around and say conservatives BLAH BLAH BLAH.

You still haven't answered the question. How does the 10 commandments appearing in a courthouse or outside of one have any effect on YOU. I mean, obviously you think this effects your life on a daily basis or you wouldn't be complaining about having religion forced down YOUR throad and having it pushed on YOU.

So tell me, how does this happen.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't have an effect on ME yet (in this specific court example), but why should I wait until I'm on trial to want to change something? When making laws, you have to look at how they effect OTHER people, and not just yourself.

"Well how does a drunk person driving a car affect YOU? They haven't hit YOU!" If we used this line of reasoning, drunk driving would be legal, and you would only be prosecuted if you actually hit anybody.

Doesn't make sense.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You do understand that the speration of church and state isn't a Constitutional guarantee? You do realize it was a phrase introduced to the American lexicon by a Supreme Court justice, Hugo Black, who was a KKK member and an FDR appointee?

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.[/quote]

The church is a separate entity from government, and is not part and has no place in governance. A court using the ten commandments (exceptions should be made if that particular display has historical value, ie. it's been in place for 300 years or so) indicates the courts awareness of "god's laws" and their place in our laws, when in fact they have no place in ours, and this is supported by the fact that only 2 out of 10 commandments are laws (and you can hardly argue that stealing and murder are purely religious laws).

Though the term "separation of church and state" cam from thomas jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.
Click to expand...
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Now again, the 10 Commandments is Jewish law, not Christian. They were given to a Jew by the Jewish God. Now would you care to elaborate where Jesus proclaimed any kind of law? Would you like to illustrate "Christian" law? Or are you going to backtrack and admit that the 10 Commandments is indeed Jewish in origin and you really don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

It's used by christians, and therefore it is christian and jewish.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']It doesn't have an effect on ME yet (in this specific court example), but why should I wait until I'm on trial to want to change something? When making laws, you have to look at how they effect OTHER people, and not just yourself.

"Well how does a drunk person driving a car affect YOU? They haven't hit YOU!" If we used this line of reasoning, drunk driving would be legal, and you would only be prosecuted if you actually hit anybody.

Doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I see, so you lied. It doesn't have an effect on you. So you overreacted for no reason?

Are you worried that you'll be put on trial for having a god before God? Does it keep you up at night that you may be held accountable for not keeping the Sabbath holy? Is your freedom of speech being restricted by being fined for taking the Lord's name in vain? Do you live in paranoid fear that sometime the police will come and knock at your door for coveting your neighbour's house; coveting your neighbour's wife, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbors?

Tell me, which of the 10 Commandments do you live in fear of having a direct effect on you?
 
How does it have to physically affect you, it's state endorsement of religious texts, plain and simple. It would be setting a dangerous pro judeo-christian precedent to allow such things. If religious texts are placed, by officials, on a courthouse, it would only be because a particular religion is being promoted and/or favored by government.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Though the term "separation of church and state" cam from thomas jefferson:
[/QUOTE]

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. "

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers.
EXCERPT: Link

In modern context, as applies to the Lord's Prayer being removed from public schools, the debates over the 10 Commandments it applies to Hugo Black. It was not a term used in American jurisprudence for 147 years and non of the societal issues were brought up or addressed until that decision.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']How does it have to physically affect you, it's state endorsement of religious texts, plain and simple. It would be setting a dangerous pro judeo-christian precedent to allow such things. If religious texts are placed, by officials, on a courthouse, it would only be because a particular religion is being promoted and/or favored by government.[/QUOTE]

What texts? The Bible? The Torah? The Koran? Every single Abrahamic derived faith holds the 10 Commandments in esteem.

What couthouse in America is displaying the Bible, Torah or Koran? Can you name one?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh, I see, so you lied. It doesn't have an effect on you. So you overreacted for no reason?

Are you worried that you'll be put on trial for having a god before God? Does it keep you up at night that you may be held accountable for not keeping the Sabbath holy? Is your freedom of speech being restricted by being fined for taking the Lord's name in vain? Do you live in paranoid fear that sometime the police will come and knock at your door for coveting your neighbour's house; coveting your neighbour's wife, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbors?

Tell me, which of the 10 Commandments do you live in fear of having a direct effect on you?[/QUOTE]
In all fairness, I didn't lie about anything (I was responding to a point that you were trying to make against evilmregg, but I can see how you would confuse our usernames).

The point is (as I was saying), that you're giving the impression that you are being tried under (instead of Christian, I'll say: ) God's law. An more accurate and refined way of saying this would be "man's interpretation of God's law", which is why you see variation between the religious sects.

What would I fear? No commandment in particular, but what they symbolize when fused with a government court system. For example, what if you were an openly homosexual person on trial? Many would claim that God looks down on homosexuality, so would a homosexual person and a heterosexual person receive equal treatment in God's court?

What if the shoe was on the other foot? Let's say you were on trial for the murder of a homosexual. Some would claim that you were doing God's work, and in a "religion endorsed" court it might appear as if you would receive special treatment.

The point is this: God's law should have little baring on U.S. law (especially since our interpretaion of God's law could be seen as majorly faulty). We're a democracy and a republic, not a theocracy.

If you want to live in a theocracy (which you seem to be defending), you should check out the place in your signature.
 
What court in America isn't going to give me anything but harsher treatment for a "hate crime" if I murdered a homosexual? Where would I receive anything less than harsher treatment for this crime in this country? You can't name any state in the land. Even if the 10 Commandments were behind the judge the law is the criminal code, not on the plaques on the wall.

Would a homosexual receive an equal trial from God versus a heterosexual? Yes. Absolutely. It's not the sinner but the sin God would find distasteful. If a homosexual was completely repentant for his/her actions and sins they would be forgiven and enter the Kingdom. If a heterosexual was unrepentent, he would not. However that is not the issue at hand.

The issue is that people are of the belief that somehow this is an establishment of religion. So I want to know, how is this effecting daily lives? You're all talking in abstracts. If the 10 Commandments was the basis of law or in danger of becoming law why would adultery be legal?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If the 10 Commandments was the basis of law or in danger of becoming law why would adultery be legal?[/QUOTE]
Good point.

It's not as if it's a huge, pressing matter (no bigger than the flag burning legislation they voted on a few days ago). It's just something on the backburner that needs to be looked at.

I just don't like the whole gray-area of it. You (and they) make it sound like "if it isn't directly and concretely affecting anything, then 'meh', just let it be." As you said, it's more abstract than anything else. I would argue that it sends a subconcious message of "This philosophy is right, and we put it on our official court rooms", and that subconcious thought shouldn't be there at all.

Instead of argueing that "it's not hurting anything, so why change it", try argueing why it should be there.

I think that's where we're conflicting, we're talking about two different things.
 
How does it affect me personally? It doesn't. How does the war in Iraq effect me personally? It doesn't. But that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about the 1742+ American soldiers who have died for a needless war led by a Christian President who thinks he has a divine mandate. Besides, if my freedom is in jeopardy I sit up and take notice.
 
[quote name='evilmregg']How does it affect me personally? It doesn't. How does the war in Iraq effect me personally? It doesn't. But that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about the 1742+ American soldiers who have died for a needless war led by a Christian President who thinks he has a divine mandate. Besides, if my freedom is in jeopardy I sit up and take notice.[/QUOTE]

Then I win. You admit it doesn't affect you at all. What happened to religion being shoved down your throat? What happened to you having religion forced upon you?

It's nice that you can change the topic and go on a rant that has nothing to do with the subject being discussed. Congratulations, you're a loser.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The issue is that people are of the belief that somehow this is an establishment of religion. So I want to know, how is this effecting daily lives? You're all talking in abstracts. If the 10 Commandments was the basis of law or in danger of becoming law why would adultery be legal?[/QUOTE]

So let me get this straight - you don't think propoganda has an effect on the mindset of the people? If that was true they'd stop putting gideon bibles in my hotel rooms and the Republicans wouldn't need to keep hammering the message that Democrats are evil and we invaded Iraq because of the threat of terrorism, WMDs, and spreading Democracy...

I just want to know how much the advertising space at the state capitals should be sold for - if we're going to pimp out our governing institutions to mainstream religion, might as well get paid.
 
And maybe, just maybe, liberals would stop comparing our actions in self defense to the needless persecution of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and political prisoners. Mabe even expand that to admit we're not killing millions and piling up their bones in boxes, on walls and on display like the Khmer Rouge or forcing millions to die from slave labor mining gold to finance the Soviet state. I mean, if you want to talk about "propoganda" let's throw that out on the table.

it's great that you will compare the first codified law in the existence of man to propoganda. Just out of curiosity, how does it feel to be a top notch revisionist?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. "

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers.
EXCERPT: Link

In modern context, as applies to the Lord's Prayer being removed from public schools, the debates over the 10 Commandments it applies to Hugo Black. It was not a term used in American jurisprudence for 147 years and non of the societal issues were brought up or addressed until that decision.[/QUOTE]

But the argument that the term originates with Black is incorrect, as it originated from jefferson. And it is odd, that you can somehow argue a deist (who was often accused of atheism), who despised organized religion, in the end would be more concerned with protecting the church than protecting the state. Obviously the question that prompted that response was on the issue of state interference with religion, but it is inconsistent with jeffersons beliefs to suggest that the church interfering with the state wasn't his greater fear.

The "virginia statute for religious freedom" by jefferson seems to also support my argument on jeffersons beliefs:


that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor
under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude
his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a
dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because
he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule
of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;​
Click to expand...


In these cases of the courts and the ten commandments, the courts are doing just that.
​
What texts? The Bible? The Torah? The Koran? Every single Abrahamic derived faith holds the 10 Commandments in esteem.

What couthouse in America is displaying the Bible, Torah or Koran? Can you name one?
Click to expand...

Ten commandments are from a religious text, and in this case they are being used as christian texts, whoever else uses them, in these particular cases they are being presented as christian texts and to support the argument of the religious (particularly christian) foundation of this country. Why you think the entire book has to be used to meet this qualification is beyond me.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Then I win. You admit it doesn't affect you at all. What happened to religion being shoved down your throat? What happened to you having religion forced upon you?

It's nice that you can change the topic and go on a rant that has nothing to do with the subject being discussed. Congratulations, you're a loser.[/QUOTE]

It's nice how you dismiss any argument that contradicts your own as "changing the topic" and resort to name-calling in lieu of any rational arguments. Congratulations to you! You've obviously learned a lot from watching Bill O'Reilly.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh, I see, so you lied. It doesn't have an effect on you. So you overreacted for no reason?
[/QUOTE]


You are a fucking hypocrit and a dumbass. You hate gay marriage, it doesn't have any effect on you, so why overreact.
 
[quote name='David85']You are a fucking hypocrit and a dumbass. You hate gay marriage, it doesn't have any effect on you, so why overreact.[/QUOTE]

I don't hate gay marriage but again, way to change the topic to something tha has nothing to do with this.

Not being in favor of something does not equate to "hating" it. If I'm not in favor of giving subsidies to sardine fishermen does that mean I hate sardine fishermen?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']...it's great that you will compare the first codified law in the existence of man to propoganda. Just out of curiosity, how does it feel to be a top notch revisionist?[/QUOTE]

First systematic, codified law? Hardly - that honor belongs to the Arabs, with the "Code of Hammurabi"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

That is, unless you admit that the Ten Commandments was ripped out of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, in which case they may be older.

Something tells me we'll never see the "Code of Hammurabi" or the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" in a Kentucky courtroom, but fear not - because ancient Draconian law, courtesy of the Patriot Act and DMCA, is soon coming to a courthouse near you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco
 
it's great that you will compare the first codified law in the existence of man to propoganda. Just out of curiosity, how does it feel to be a top notch revisionist?
Click to expand...

Earliest known written set of laws is the "code of hammurabi", not the 10 commandments or even the law of moses.

Babylon
The oldest written set of laws known to us is the Code of Hammurabi. He was the king of Babylon between 1792 BC and 1758 BC. Hammurabi is said to have been handed these laws by Shamash, the God of Justice. The laws were carved on huge stone slabs and placed all over the city so that people would know about them. Judges were appointed to see that they were obeyed.

This is an example of the philosophy that influenced their law making: 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Whatever was done to the victim, then the aggressor would be repaid in a similar fashion.
Click to expand...

Here's the full translation, if anyone is interested (I read about 25 of the laws) http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

edit: damn, it seems like someone beat me to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top