From or Of

[woodchip]

While we are on the Supreme Court track, The USSC is now hearing briefs on religious symbols in govt. buildings. I am curious how our country, founded on a religious principle, now is viewed by some as a country that should be free "from" religion. While I am not a strong believer in any one form of religion, I do think religion and the freedom "of" religion is a strong adhesive holding a country togeather. What I see is the ACLU, having strong socialist and communist ties at it's inception and supporters there-in, are doing their best to bring atheism as the approved religion for this country. Too bad they (socialists) don't understand this godless model has already been tried in the USSR.

[Avder]

The biggest issue I have with all the anti-religion and anti-ten-commandments lawsuits lately is that they are, in fact, baseless (excepting of course if there are clauses in state constitutions that actually do prohibit such displays). The first ammendment makes one decree with regards to religion: congress cant endorce one. Thats it. The United States Congress is prohibited from endorsing religion. The ammendment makes no mention of the Alabama Supreme court, or the Duluth, MN City council, or your neighbor bob's christmas nativity scene. The Supreme court needs to have the guts to actually go with the WORD OF LAW instead of the godless interperetations that have been springing up over the past few decades.

[woodchip]

Just a thought but how does the international legal bunch view this. As in Bolds thread, perhaps we can find a hint of how our Supreme Court will decide this issue from how the U.N. views religion

[Top Gun]

Technically though Avder, through the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the religious clauses of the First Amendment have been extended to state/local governments. Either way, though, I still think their "interpretation" is wrong.

[Stryker]

Freedom of religion was originally meant to counter such setups as the Anglican church and the British government. The founding fathers didn't want the government they were creating to ban any one religion. Any individual person would have the right to choose any individual religion.

"Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion."

This implies that the writers of the Constitution didn't want the government to make one religion the "state religion", because such religions often blatently oppressed the other religions in the area (again, see the Anglican church for reference).

Nowhere in any part of the Constitution does it say that the government cannot have religious artifacts on display. Besides this, these artifacts contain, for the most part (excluding, perhaps, the first, second, and tenth commandments), laws prevalent in our society. Besides this, the Ten Commandments are almost universally recognized as a symbol of societal law. If somebody doesn't like them, they have the freedom to look away, just as the judiciary system has a right to place these artifacts on their property.

Also, unless the Supreme Court is going to blatently start legislating of their own free will, instead of performing their assigned functions (to INTERPRET existing law), they have no right to banish displays of religion from public property. "The Government shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion" does not have any bearing whatsoever on a part of the government placing a memorial plaque of the Ten Commandments on its property.

[Bold Deceiver]

Also, unless the Supreme Court is going to blatently start legislating of their own free will . . .

Stryke, I think that's where we have arrived. Let me give you an example that impacts my own practice (I'm a lawyer, by the way.)

The Supreme Court recently struck down a jury finding imposing punitive damages along a ratio of 400 or so to 1 (meaning, if the plaintiff established he had been "damaged" to the tune of $1000, the punitive damages would have been $400,000.) They quite literally just made up a new law (much like they did with Roe v. Wade). The new law is this -- any punitive damages award exceeding a ratio of 9 to 1 is "constitutionally suspect".

Now listen. I happen represent Big Money. Banks, financial institutions, and other commercial entities whose names everyone on this board would recognize. From the perspective of large financial institutions, this is a WONDERFUL opinion. SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) just did them a huge favor.

But I was mortified by it. Just as I am mortified by other SCOTUS decisions where they just make up law, like this recent Roper v. Simmons case.

So I hope like heck that this Establishment Clause case that Woodchip has been assiduously following, falls on the right side of the law -- but I don't have lots of confidence right now. Who would?

BD

[woodchip]

The new law is this -- any punitive damages award exceeding a ratio of 9 to 1 is "constitutionally suspect". BD

So how is a certain ratio "constitutionally" suspect?
Somewhere in the constitution that spells this out? Do we now extend this out to what is constitutionally acceptable for interest rates on credit cards? Is there a magic formula buried in the constitution that tells me what a "fair" markup is for a manufactured piece of equipment? Will the USSC determine what a fair percentage of value can be used to tax property...both business and personnel?
What Bold is posting leads me to believe that the 9 to 1 ratio ruling is now a precendant that can be used to manipulate things to the benefit and detriment of all citizens. In the end all economics could ultimately be controlled by the nattering nine and not by people we elect to do this very thing.
All hail the men in black.

[Couver_]

The new law is this -- any punitive damages award exceeding a ratio of 9 to 1 is "constitutionally suspect". BD

So how is a certain ratio "constitutionally" suspect?
Somewhere in the constitution that spells this out? Do we now extend this out to what is constitutionally acceptable for interest rates on credit cards? Is there a magic formula buried in the constitution that tells me what a "fair" markup is for a manufactured piece of equipment? Will the USSC determine what a fair percentage of value can be used to tax property...both business and personnel?
What Bold is posting leads me to believe that the 9 to 1 ratio ruling is now a precendant that can be used to manipulate things to the benefit and detriment of all citizens. In the end all economics could ultimately be controlled by the nattering nine and not by people we elect to do this very thing.
All hail the men in black.

Thats what I get out of it too.Well said!!

In some cases 9-1 is low (IE kid died due to extreme malpractice) I feel the corporate world will go for this as a benchmark to start. Then beat people down in lawsuits.

[Bold Deceiver]

In the end all economics could ultimately be controlled by the nattering nine and not by people we elect to do this very thing.
All hail the men in black.

And there you have it. Glad to see I'm not the only one who is alarmed at this happy horse****.

BD

[Zuruck]

Hey man, the corporate world has more of the politicians ears than we do. I don't know many people that were able to stuff millions in both parties' pockets.

In terms of what woodchip started, I'm not really for it or against it. But as usual, I will offer the dissenting opinion. Everyone else says, look away, but I say, if you want to practice religion, do it at church, home, wherever you want, but leave it out of the places it shouldn't be. If the Ten Commandments are there, I want to see something from the Koran, would you guys agree to that? I know this country is based on Christianity, but I want equality and I want to see the Koran. Religion does not need to be in every aspect of our lives, if you are a devout, go to church, pray everyday, be happy, do what you want to do. But quit fighting this crap, it's stupid. No prayers in school, forget about monuments, it's not worth it. Why keep fighting? Leave people like me alone, I don't come to your house on a Saturday morning to tell you how i'm going to hell since I don't believe in something I will never see, taste, or touch.

[Stryker]

In all seriousness, GET OVER THE CHRISTOPHOBIA. Muslim students can pray in schools, why can't Christians?

The Koran is not a publicly known document that has been known as a law-book for millenia, serving to guide us and provide us with a code of laws. In fact, it distinctly says, in several places, to kill infidels. All of them. That would include you, me, and probably 99% of the people on this board. Which verses do you want to see, the Ten Commandments, and, printed next to them on a stone plaque, "Allah will afflict you (infidels) with punishment from himself (Allah) or by our(muslims) hands"?

leave it out of the places it shouldn't be.

And just who is to determine where it shouldn't be? It shouldn't be in government buildings? Fine. Government personnel shouldn't be allowed to display their religion? Ok... People shouldn't be allowed to display religious artifacts in their yard? You're reaching... People should not be allowed to publicly display their religion? You've just infringed on the rights of the people granted in the U.S. Constitution.

Leave people like me alone, I don't come to your house on a Saturday morning to tell you how i'm going to hell since I don't believe in something I will never see, taste, or touch.

Put up a no soliciting sign on your door. Problem solved.

Oh, and BTW, do you believe in Pluto?

[Lothar]

I don't care one way or another about this monument... but man, Zuruck, your argument was lame.

Leave people like me alone

I'm pretty sure that's what they're asking you to do -- quit whining about their monuments and leave them alone. If someone wants to post a public monument that refers to an ancient legal code (which also happens to be a part of the religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) why fight against it? It's not a monument that says "Jesus died for your sins" or anything like that. It's the Ten Commandments -- an ancient legal code that pretty much every country in Europe and the Americas referenced in some way when they created their governments.

If there's something from the Koran that is as relevant to American tradition as the Ten Commandments, I wouldn't be opposed to it being posted. But there isn't -- the Koran is relevant to other countries' traditions, but not particularly to ours, so it's silly to say we should post a Koran monument for the sake of balance. The Ten Commandments monument isn't out there for "balance", it's out there to point to tradition and the formation of law. Give me something from the Koran that would be equally relevant, and it should be posted -- but if there is nothing, don't try to post such a monument just to "balance" things.

You say "it's not worth fighting", yet you're also saying "you guys on the other side should give up". What a joke -- "this war's not worth fighting, so you guys on the other side should just surrender." Um, yeah. How about not...

This country has far too many people who are intolerant of religion (or Christianity) in the name of tolerance. Those people need to step off.

edit:

Weâ??re learning this week of religious symbols all over the Capital. Among the statues of lawgivers are many religious figures:

Here are the relief portraits above the gallery in the House chamber:

George Mason, Robert Joseph Pothier, Jean Baptiste Colbert, Edward I, Alfonso X, Gregory IX, Saint Louis, Justinian I, Tribonian, Lycurgus, Hammurabi, Moses, Solon, Papinian, Gaius, Maimonides, Suleiman, Innocent III, Simon de Montfort, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, Napoleon I, and Thomas Jefferson.

There are 18 figures of lawgivers on the walls of the Supreme Court chamber:

Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Napoleon, John Marshall, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Muhammad, and Justinian.

[woodchip]

Everyone else says, look away, but I say, if you want to practice religion, do it at church, home, wherever you want, but leave it out of the places it shouldn't be.

This is only true if you consider walking by a religious symbol as somehow practising religion.
By your statement Zuruck, we should carefully go through all our public "govt." libraries and remove all books that reference any sort of spirituality. Wouldn't want any of that crap rubbing off when one goes in to get a book on gardening. Probably shouldn't have places of worship visible from public highways either. Wouldn't want to have an epiphany while driving by. Where do we draw the line?

No prayers in school, forget about monuments, it's not worth it. Why keep fighting? Leave people like me alone, I don't come to your house on a Saturday morning to tell you how i'm going to hell since I don't believe in something I will never see, taste, or touch.

So when the road gets a little rough, we should just give up and go home?

[Mobius]

Just as I am mortified by other SCOTUS decisions where they just make up law

Being a lawyer you should know the difference between precedent and law. They didn't make any law at all - that's just rubbish. What they did is set, or follow, precedent. Nothing more.

[Will Robinson]

Just as I am mortified by other SCOTUS decisions where they just make up law

Being a lawyer you should know the difference between precedent and law. They didn't make any law at all - that's just rubbish. What they did is set, or follow, precedent. Nothing more.

Not quite, because when a lower court sets a precedence it can be challenged and overturned in a higher court. But when the Supremes set a precedence it is, for all intents and purposes, a law.
At least unless congress grows a sack and writes their precedent out of play. So, while literally speaking it isn't a law written in the books it becomes accepted as 'what the law says'...therefore you might as well think of it as law.

[Zuruck]

No, walking by a monument is not religion. BUT, why do people see the need in displaying it? If you want to be a devout religious man, that's fine, do what you want. But in a public forum such as a government building, leave it out. It's not the biggest deal in the world. If you want to see the 10 commandments, put a big one right in your front lawn, put a huge shrine in your house, have daily prayers, do all that stuff. (I just described Lothar's life didn't I?)

[Top Gun]

No, walking by a monument is not religion. BUT, why do people see the need in displaying it? If you want to be a devout religious man, that's fine, do what you want. But in a public forum such as a government building, leave it out. It's not the biggest deal in the world. If you want to see the 10 commandments, put a big one right in your front lawn, put a huge shrine in your house, have daily prayers, do all that stuff. (I just described Lothar's life didn't I?)

Zuruck, you're forgetting that some of these displays go back 50 or 100 years, if not longer. For instance, there are many depictions of Biblical figures featured throughout the artwork in the Capitol building; there is a depiction of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building itself. Would you advocate ripping these out of the walls? Are you trying to tell me that these displays are "offensive" to anyone? Some people in this world need to seriously just grow a pair and stop complaining.

[Lothar]

BUT, why do people see the need in displaying it?

1) Insecurity. People desire to have others affirm their beliefs. This is why people want to display it, and this is why others want to stop it. They (both the pro- and anti- monument people) want to have society / government endorse their beliefs (religious or anti-religious.)

2) Historical / teaching value. People desire to have public displays that have either historical meaning, or good messages about how people should act in a civil society. From the Ten Commandments to those cheezy "be nice to everyone!" messages in Elementary school hallways, people want displays that encourage good behavior.

The first reason is a bad reason, for either side. The second reason is a pretty decent reason for the pro-monument side.

in a public forum such as a government building, leave it out.

See... this is where I think both sides start talking past each other. Most people on the pro-monument side don't view the Ten Commandments as a strongly religious monument. Putting it up isn't about being religious in public, it's about celebrating history and giving a positive message. (There are those who see it as religious, but not nearly as many as you might think.) So when the anti-monument side starts arguing that you should "keep your religion private" it seems like a silly overreaction.

I can see where you're coming from, but the "put a fence around the monument" and "no new monuments" arguments people usually give seem like anti-religious paranoia to those who support the monuments. It would be a good argument against putting "Jesus Saves" signs in the park, but it's not really a good argument against the relatively benign "Ten Commandments" type monuments.

Really, I think both sides should leave the monuments that are already in place alone (not trying to remove OR add new monuments of this type.) Those who don't like them should learn to be civil, and those who want more should try to add more variety by putting up monuments to other important historical documents and other encouraging messages. Ten Commandments monuments are OK, but they should really be a part of a larger framework that includes monuments to other things as well.

[woodchip]

A couple of thoughts. First, most buildings that have religious frieze's or monuments were built when this nation was more outwardly christian and/religious. You know, back before saying the Pledge of Alliegence in school wasn't considered brain washing the youth of america.
Secondly the Ten Commandments are universally recognised as the first moral code handed to man. Whether this codex was given by god or if Moses was high on happy dust and thought them up himself is irrelevant, the commandments are the first moral strictures recorded (correct me if I am wrong). The question is in a court of law, what is wrong with displaying a historical moral creed that binds mans ethical behavior for more than 2000 years? Or would it be better just to have the blind justice statue in a Janet Jackson moment be the sole icon?

[Lothar]

The Code of Hammurabi is thought to be from around 1750 BC, which is a few hundred years older than the Ten Commandments. A number of other codes existed at the time in various other civilizations, though few have been preserved. So the Ten Commandments is not the oldest moral code given to man.

The Ten Commandments and the rest of the Mosaic Law differ from other codes in terms of the way they treat people and property. Other codes gave very harsh punishments for damaging the property of the rich, and very light punishments for hurting a poor person, but the Mosaic Law reserved the harshest punishments for murder (regardless of the social status of the victim) and blasphemy/idolatry. The Ten Commandments are the oldest code anybody knows of that treat the poor and the rich as on the same level, and that in itself makes them worthy of the occasional monument.

[Zuruck]

Good post Lothar, can't believe I'm saying that. As for people feeling anti-religion paranoia sweeping the world, that's just the way it goes, you can't make them all happy.

I would not rip down facades and mouldings in govt building because they contain religious symbols. They were built like that, fine, but do we NEED to have the 10 commandments up? Do we NEED it? And woodchip, lest you forget, the "under god" part in the pledge was only added in 50 years ago, that's it.

I'm completely fine with people practicing whatever they want, it doesn't matter to me. I'm intrigued that people are real set for this, that judge in Missouri?? got booted from the bench because he wouldn't obey a federal order to remove that statue from the foyer.

[Top Gun]

Zuruck, I will agree that there's no real need to have the Ten Commandments on display. I was more concerned about taking extraordinary measures to remove existing displays that have been in said buildings for extended periods of time, as some people seem to want; your post reassured me on that point. I also think that that judge you mentioned (I'm not sure that he was from Missouri, though) did go too far in what he was doing; he overstepped his judicial authority.

[DCrazy]

The purpose of the statue is (ostensibly) to establish the basis upon which modern law is founded. If statues of the Ten Commandments, the Code of Hammurabi, and the Magna Carta were all in the foyer of a government building, would you honestly advocate removing the statue of the Commandments?