Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case

Religions > Atheism > Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"The Bandit"
Date:	29 Mar 2005 06:46:01 AM
Object:	Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....
A federal appeals court last week upheld the display of documents
including the Ten Commandments in a government building in Elkhart,
Ind.
The display inside the Elkhart County Administration Building is
identical to the one pending in the U.S. Supreme Court case McCreary
County v. ACLU of Kentucky. The documents in the Indiana case include
nine historical documents and symbols, including the Ten Commandments,
flanked by the U.S. flag and the Indiana flag.
"[I]t is well within the bounds of constitutional plausibility to
assert, as the County does here, that the Ten Commandments have played
an important role in the development of American society and civic
order," the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling.
"The Establishment Clause is not violated when government teaches about
the historical role of religion," the court added. "We see no reason
why the display as erected must be purged of the Ten Commandments to
survive constitutional scrutiny."
The Liberty Counsel, which represented Elkhart County in the case,
applauded the appeals court ruling.
"The Seventh Circuit's decision rejected the attempt to rewrite our
history by removing any and all religious references. The Ten
Commandments did play an important part in our history, and government
may constitutionally display it for its historical value," said Erik
Stanley, chief counsel for Liberty Counsel, in a statement.
"The Ten Commandments is a universally recognized symbol of law.
Displaying the Ten Commandments does not establish a religion.
Displaying the Ten Commandments acknowledges religion and the role of
religion in America. Acknowledging religion is far different than
establishing religion," said Mat Staver, president and general counsel
of the Liberty Counsel.
Judge Frank Easterbrook, who dissented, said he had "serious doubts"
about "the supposition that the establishment clause affects the states
in the same way as the national government." The Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law
respecting the establishment of religion."
"'Endorsement' differs from 'establishment,' Easterbrook noted. "A
government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" He wrote, "'Establishment'
entails coercion: either mandatory religious observance or mandatory
support (via taxes) for clergy on the public payroll."
Easterbrook also wrote that simply being offended by a religious
display does mean a person has the legal standing to sue.
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	29 Mar 2005 11:31:03 PM

In alt.atheism on 28 Mar 2005 22:46:01 -0800, "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> let us all know that:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

As opposed to someone who thinks that "judges" takes the 3rd
person singular of "to be"?

A federal appeals court last week upheld the display of documents
including the Ten Commandments in a government building in Elkhart,
Ind.

Judges upheld "separate but equal". Didn't make it correct.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	29 Mar 2005 07:00:38 AM

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when

endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually

judges

out there with complete intact functional brains.....

A federal appeals court last week upheld the display of documents
including the Ten Commandments in a government building in Elkhart,
Ind.

So the US government is endorsing christian talismans
as part of everyone's sound spiritual diet?
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.

User: "WF Peifer"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	29 Mar 2005 10:26:13 AM

<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112079638.036443.28950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

So the US government is endorsing christian talismans
as part of everyone's sound spiritual diet?

Wait!!! Which Ten Commandments are they? They might not even be the
Christian Commandments! There are six different sets of the Ten
Commandments listed at http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf
(Protestant, Catholic, Hebrew, the "First Tablets" which Moses smashed, the
"Second Tablets" which were God's rewrite, and the so-called "Ten
Punishments") and I know of at least two other slightly different versions
that I heard growing up Lutheran in a Mennonite area. Islam (which shares
roots with Judaism) has their own version. Are they all OK for the
government to endorse? Or just the three or four Christian versions? How
about the Republican version?
I - Money is the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before it.
II - Thou shalt make unto thee graven images only of Republican Presidents
and elephants.
III - Thou shalt not utter the blasphemous words "Democrat" or "liberal"
unless thou art doing so to call them every obscenity in the book.
IV - Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou screw
your neighbor every chance you get, but on the seventh day you are commanded
to act pious and loving for the two hours or so that thou art in church.
V - Honor thy father and thy mother, as long as it's politically expedient
to do so, but send them off to a nursing home the moment they can no longer
do thou any good politically.
VI - Thou shalt not kill, unless there be political capital to be gained by
killing, in which case . . . BLOW THE MOTHERFUCKERS AWAY!
VII - Thou shalt not commit adultery (between the hours of 11 AM and Noon on
the first Sunday of the month).
VIII - Thou shalt not steal . . . unless you think you can get away with it.
IX - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor unless thy
neighbor is a Democrat, in which case thou should repeat the lies thou
tellest about him as loudly and as frequently as possible, so that the
mindless sheep around thou might start to believe thou.
X - Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's house, unless it's bigger than
yours. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, unless she's sexier than
yours. Thou MAY covet his manservant, but only for the use of
Presidentially sanctioned gay orgies. His maidservant is also fair game,
but what self-respecting Republican would want a maidservant if there be a
delightful manservant available? Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ox,
because ox tastes like *****. Covet his ***** all you want, but thou would
probably prefer to covet they neighbor's young son's *****. In other words,
covet all you want, except for that gamey tasting ox.
******************************
You KNOW Democrats are far sexier than Republicans. After all, who ever
heard of a great piece of elephant?
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	30 Mar 2005 11:59:15 PM

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:26:13 -0700, "WF Peifer" <wfpeifer@nospam.com>
wrote:

<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112079638.036443.28950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

So the US government is endorsing christian talismans
as part of everyone's sound spiritual diet?

Wait!!! Which Ten Commandments are they? They might not even be the
Christian Commandments! There are six different sets of the Ten
Commandments listed at http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf
(Protestant, Catholic, Hebrew, the "First Tablets" which Moses smashed, the
"Second Tablets" which were God's rewrite, and the so-called "Ten
Punishments") and I know of at least two other slightly different versions
that I heard growing up Lutheran in a Mennonite area. Islam (which shares
roots with Judaism) has their own version. Are they all OK for the
government to endorse? Or just the three or four Christian versions? How
about the Republican version?

I - Money is the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before it.

II - Thou shalt make unto thee graven images only of Republican Presidents
and elephants.

III - Thou shalt not utter the blasphemous words "Democrat" or "liberal"
unless thou art doing so to call them every obscenity in the book.

IV - Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou screw
your neighbor every chance you get, but on the seventh day you are commanded
to act pious and loving for the two hours or so that thou art in church.

V - Honor thy father and thy mother, as long as it's politically expedient
to do so, but send them off to a nursing home the moment they can no longer
do thou any good politically.

VI - Thou shalt not kill, unless there be political capital to be gained by
killing, in which case . . . BLOW THE MOTHERFUCKERS AWAY!

VII - Thou shalt not commit adultery (between the hours of 11 AM and Noon on
the first Sunday of the month).

VIII - Thou shalt not steal . . . unless you think you can get away with it.

IX - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor unless thy
neighbor is a Democrat, in which case thou should repeat the lies thou
tellest about him as loudly and as frequently as possible, so that the
mindless sheep around thou might start to believe thou.

X - Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's house, unless it's bigger than
yours. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, unless she's sexier than
yours. Thou MAY covet his manservant, but only for the use of
Presidentially sanctioned gay orgies. His maidservant is also fair game,
but what self-respecting Republican would want a maidservant if there be a
delightful manservant available? Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ox,
because ox tastes like *****. Covet his ***** all you want, but thou would
probably prefer to covet they neighbor's young son's *****. In other words,
covet all you want, except for that gamey tasting ox.

******************************

You KNOW Democrats are far sexier than Republicans. After all, who ever
heard of a great piece of elephant?

MMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHH
Twenty points awarded. :D
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.

User: "GlennGlenn"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to SupremeCourt Case	30 Mar 2005 12:38:49 AM

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

"Damn, there is actually judges (sic)" who think that the Ten
Commandments are "part of a sound diet"?
Many of them (e.g., the "First") don't even apply to non-believers and
non-Judeo-Christians all over the country. Others are just damn silly
(e.g., the alleged sin of "coveting").
And it's pure idolatry to desire a stone image of them made.
The whole thing just doesn't make sense.
GlennGlenn
.

User: "Bugman"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	30 Mar 2005 01:40:37 AM

"GlennGlenn" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:tym2e.6750$zl.6319@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

"Damn, there is actually judges (sic)" who think that the Ten
Commandments are "part of a sound diet"?

Many of them (e.g., the "First") don't even apply to non-believers and
non-Judeo-Christians all over the country. Others are just damn silly
(e.g., the alleged sin of "coveting").

I bought a new snow mobile this year. My neighbor started giving it just a
little bit too much attention. So I says, " Hey Bob. You better watch that
coveting of my new sled or your gonna burn in hellfire for all eternity".
Bob said, "Wow that was a close one. Thanks buddy"

And it's pure idolatry to desire a stone image of them made.

The whole thing just doesn't make sense.

GlennGlenn

User: "Jez"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to SupremeCourt Case	01 Apr 2005 01:03:32 PM

Bugman wrote:

"GlennGlenn" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:tym2e.6750$zl.6319@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

"Damn, there is actually judges (sic)" who think that the Ten
Commandments are "part of a sound diet"?

Many of them (e.g., the "First") don't even apply to non-believers and
non-Judeo-Christians all over the country. Others are just damn silly
(e.g., the alleged sin of "coveting").

LOL !!!
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.

User: "GlennGlenn"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to SupremeCourt Case	01 Apr 2005 10:49:33 PM

Bugman wrote:

"GlennGlenn" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:tym2e.6750$zl.6319@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

"Damn, there is actually judges (sic)" who think that the Ten
Commandments are "part of a sound diet"?

Many of them (e.g., the "First") don't even apply to non-believers and
non-Judeo-Christians all over the country. Others are just damn silly
(e.g., the alleged sin of "coveting").

You're a good friend, Bugman.

And it's pure idolatry to desire a stone image of them made.

The whole thing just doesn't make sense.

GlennGlenn
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to SupremeCourt Case	29 Mar 2005 02:16:21 PM

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

The United States Constitution does not prohibit government from endorsing
milk, does it? The United States Constitution does, however, prohibit
government from endorsing religion. Those of us who actually DO have
complete, intact, functional brains are capable of understanding the
distinction.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.

User: "Diogenes"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	29 Mar 2005 03:26:25 PM

"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42496335.DCDD0225@serv.net...

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

The United States Constitution does not prohibit government from endorsing
milk, does it? The United States Constitution does, however, prohibit
government from endorsing religion. Those of us who actually DO have
complete, intact, functional brains are capable of understanding the
distinction.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005

Obviously your alleged functionality is a red herring. Try reading the
Constitution some time.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise therof..."
Now please tell us where Congress has made a law that establishes any
religion as the state religion, or prohibits the free exercise of any
reasonable religion, including agnoticism/atheism. I mean, try to do this
without putting words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers as folks like
you and the judicially legislating branch have all too frequently done to
your own inimical purposes.
I'm all for respecting peoples rights, but a collection of moronic atheistic
whackos is making tolerance a frigging joke. I'm an atheist myself, but I
can summon enough common courtesy to let the majority of people in this
country maintain at least some modicum of respect, and practice what they
believe without being constantly persecuted by a cadre of self-righteous
inconsiderate assholes.
.

User: "Martin Holterman"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to SupremeCourt Case	29 Mar 2005 05:17:02 PM

Diogenes wrote:

"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42496335.DCDD0225@serv.net...

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

The United States Constitution does not prohibit government from endorsing
milk, does it? The United States Constitution does, however, prohibit
government from endorsing religion. Those of us who actually DO have
complete, intact, functional brains are capable of understanding the
distinction.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005

Obviously your alleged functionality is a red herring. Try reading the
Constitution some time.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise therof..."

Now please tell us where Congress has made a law that establishes any
religion as the state religion, or prohibits the free exercise of any
reasonable religion, including agnoticism/atheism. I mean, try to do this
without putting words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers as folks like
you and the judicially legislating branch have all too frequently done to
your own inimical purposes.

I'm all for respecting peoples rights, but a collection of moronic atheistic
whackos is making tolerance a frigging joke. I'm an atheist myself, but I
can summon enough common courtesy to let the majority of people in this
country maintain at least some modicum of respect, and practice what they
believe without being constantly persecuted by a cadre of self-righteous
inconsiderate assholes.

I think it is the consistent case law of the SCOTUS that the first
amendment forbids the government using its powers to favour any religon
over another in any way. Or did I state that too broadly?
Martin Holterman
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical toSupremeCourt Case	29 Mar 2005 05:32:43 PM

Martin Holterman wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42496335.DCDD0225@serv.net...

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

The United States Constitution does not prohibit government from endorsing
milk, does it? The United States Constitution does, however, prohibit
government from endorsing religion. Those of us who actually DO have
complete, intact, functional brains are capable of understanding the
distinction.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005

Obviously your alleged functionality is a red herring. Try reading the
Constitution some time.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise therof..."

Now please tell us where Congress has made a law that establishes any
religion as the state religion, or prohibits the free exercise of any
reasonable religion, including agnoticism/atheism. I mean, try to do this
without putting words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers as folks like
you and the judicially legislating branch have all too frequently done to
your own inimical purposes.

I'm all for respecting peoples rights, but a collection of moronic atheistic
whackos is making tolerance a frigging joke. I'm an atheist myself, but I
can summon enough common courtesy to let the majority of people in this
country maintain at least some modicum of respect, and practice what they
believe without being constantly persecuted by a cadre of self-righteous
inconsiderate assholes.

I think it is the consistent case law of the SCOTUS that the first
amendment forbids the government using its powers to favour any religon
over another in any way. Or did I state that too broadly?

Specifically, the First Amendment by way of the 14th Amendment. Before the Civil
War, it was technically legal for a *state*, as opposed to the federal government,
to institute religious limitations (except as prohibited by the US Constitution,
Article VI, para. 3, clause 2: "[n]o religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.") With the
ratification of the 14th, states were prohibited from making or enforcing any law
which "shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States... [or] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws." Since the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and the
separation of church and state to all citizens, states were likewise prohibited
from infringing on these guarantees.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.

User: "jwk"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	29 Mar 2005 06:01:12 PM

Diogenes wrote:

Obviously your alleged functionality is a red herring. Try reading

the

Constitution some time.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

prohibiting the free exercise therof..."

Now please tell us where Congress has made a law that establishes any
religion as the state religion, or prohibits the free exercise of any
reasonable religion, including agnoticism/atheism. I mean, try to do

this

without putting words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers as folks

you and the judicially legislating branch have all too frequently

done to

your own inimical purposes.

I'm all for respecting peoples rights, but a collection of moronic

atheistic

whackos is making tolerance a frigging joke. I'm an atheist myself,

but I

can summon enough common courtesy to let the majority of people in

this

country maintain at least some modicum of respect, and practice what

they

believe without being constantly persecuted by a cadre of

self-righteous

inconsiderate assholes.

Just reading the Constution isn't enough. There have been court
rulings that have to be taken into account. You can't just dismiss the
court, it is there for a purpose. You can't just dismiss their ruling,
either, whether you know about them or not. The rulings of the courts
interpert the Constution and the rulings I've heard about, to-date,
would not make a mixed display such as the one in the case mentioned
illegal.
However the government is not allowed to endorse religion. Just
because the Constution reads "make no law" doesn't mean they can do
anything and everything *up to making a law. In 1879 the Supreme Court
rulled that the famous "wall of separation" letter Jefferson wrote was
an authoritative declaration of the scope and meaning of the First
Amendment. Subsequent court rulings have got to take that history into
account when ruling.
jwk
Here's another good one -
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it
conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the
favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all
persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."
Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling,
1992.
BTW these are very hard to find online because theist groups have
flooded the internet with the keywords "wall of separation" and "church
and state". I think they did it delibertly to stop anyone from getting
real history. None of their sites say anything worth making a web page
for.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	31 Mar 2005 12:36:41 AM

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:26:25 -0800, "Diogenes" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42496335.DCDD0225@serv.net...

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

The United States Constitution does not prohibit government from endorsing
milk, does it? The United States Constitution does, however, prohibit
government from endorsing religion. Those of us who actually DO have
complete, intact, functional brains are capable of understanding the
distinction.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005

Neither agnosticism nore atheism are religions.

I mean, try to do this
without putting words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers as folks like
you and the judicially legislating branch have all too frequently done to
your own inimical purposes.

I'm all for respecting peoples rights, but a collection of moronic atheistic
whackos is making tolerance a frigging joke. I'm an atheist myself, but I
can summon enough common courtesy to let the majority of people in this
country maintain at least some modicum of respect, and practice what they
believe without being constantly persecuted by a cadre of self-righteous
inconsiderate assholes.

Christians, yes.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.

User: "David Hartung"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	29 Mar 2005 10:35:11 PM

"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42496335.DCDD0225@serv.net...

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

Please provide the quote in the Constitution which prevents the Government
from "endorsing" religion.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	30 Mar 2005 03:06:38 PM

David Hartung writes:

David> "Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news> 42496335.DCDD0225@serv.net...

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

David> Please provide the quote in the Constitution which prevents the Government
David> from "endorsing" religion.
One cannot have freedom of religion if the government
endorses any particular group of religions.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to SupremeCourt Case	30 Mar 2005 02:24:57 PM

David Hartung wrote:

"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42496335.DCDD0225@serv.net...

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

Please provide the quote in the Constitution which prevents the Government
from "endorsing" religion.

In the original (unamended) Constitution, I refer you to Article VI, para 3,
clause 2: "[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States." The Court has held almost from
the founding of the United States that this clause, unique among the original
Constitution, extends to *all* levels of government, from President to alderman.
Thus, government is absolutely prohibited from endorsing one religion over the
other in so far as who may hold or not hold office. Strictly interpreted, Bush's
vow to hire only Christian judges is not only unconstitutional, it is treason
against his vow to uphold and defend the Constitution.
With the Constitution as amended, I refer you to the 1st Amendment, clause 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free excercise thereof." Looking at it as the words "respecting"
and "establishment" were understood in the late 18th century, it is very clear
that Congress was forbidden from favoring any particular religious view over all
others. The first part of that clause prohibits Congress from creating a "state
church", such as the Church of England which caused so many settlers to come to
the Colonies in the first place. Remember, persecution at the hands of the
Anglican Church is exactly why Pennsylvania was created as a haven for Quakers,
why Maryland was created as a haven for Catholics and why Massachusetts was
settled by extremist Protestants. The second part extends the ban on religious
tests for public office to all aspects of life: Congress may not outlaw any
religion for any reason. The net effect, as the Courts have long held, is that
Americans have an absolute right to their religious beliefs, and equally, that
any favoring by government of any religious doctrine or dogma over any other
violates that absolute right.
Under the 14th Amendment, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Because the 1st Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court,
establishes a right to religious belief -- that is to say, grants an
inviolateable priviledge to believe or not believe as personal conscience
dictates -- the 14th Amendment binds states to guarantee that very same right.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.

User: "The Bandit"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	30 Mar 2005 10:52:00 PM

Gregory Gadow wrote:

David Hartung wrote:
In the original (unamended) Constitution, I refer you to Article VI,

para 3,

clause 2: "[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a

qualification to any

office or public trust under the United States." The Court has held

almost from

the founding of the United States that this clause, unique among the

original

Constitution, extends to *all* levels of government, from President

to alderman.
Isn't that a limitation on the federal governement? States did use a
religious test for offices. For 300 years if you were not a christian
your options were extremely limited to ever being elected to office.

Under the 14th Amendment, "No state shall make or enforce any law

which shall

abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United

States; ... nor

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws."

Because the 1st Amendment, as interpreted by the United States

Supreme Court,

establishes a right to religious belief -- that is to say, grants an
inviolateable priviledge to believe or not believe as personal

conscience

dictates -- the 14th Amendment binds states to guarantee that very

same right.
The problem with the above is the Religious Clause was a State right
and not a individule right and the reason the religious Clause was put
in the 1st amendment was to protect the State from being usurped by the
federal govt on all matters of religion. The Constitution left
religious polices and laws with the States. Another BIG problem with
the above is the fact the 14th amendment came with a HUGE bold letter
disclaimer that read "This amendment shall take no rights away from the
States."
If the 14th amendment takes no rights away from the States then it
cannot take the States right to religious legislation away. This is why
during the 14th's legislative debates Bingham, or anyone else, never
mentioned RELIGION and the first amendment religious clause. When
specifically addressing what rights the 14th would enforce of the 1st
amendment--freedom of speech and the press were outlined but never the
religious clause because that was a State right and beyond the scope of
the 14th.
It's all a bogus work of fiction by liberal justices that has no basis
in fact.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	31 Mar 2005 04:47:56 PM

"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:

:|Isn't that a limitation on the federal governement? States did use a
:|religious test for offices. For 300 years if you were not a christian
:|your options were extremely limited to ever being elected to office.

300 years huh?
False

:|The problem with the above is the Religious Clause was a State right
:|and not a individule right and the reason the religious Clause was put
:|in the 1st amendment was to protect the State from being usurped by the
:|federal govt on all matters of religion. The Constitution left
:|religious polices and laws with the States. Another BIG problem with
:|the above is the fact the 14th amendment came with a HUGE bold letter
:|disclaimer that read "This amendment shall take no rights away from the
:|States."

Really? Tell us more.
Or better yet show the documentation, the evidence.
You saying is worthless

:|If the 14th amendment takes no rights away from the States then it
:|cannot take the States right to religious legislation away. This is why
:|during the 14th's legislative debates Bingham, or anyone else, never
:|mentioned RELIGION and the first amendment religious clause. When
:|specifically addressing what rights the 14th would enforce of the 1st
:|amendment--freedom of speech and the press were outlined but never the
:|religious clause because that was a State right and beyond the scope of
:|the 14th.
:|
:|It's all a bogus work of fiction by liberal justices that has no basis
:|in fact.

We/ve done this already once today in another thread.
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:

:|You got it! And here is more mud in their face...when the 14th was
:|debated and adopted it came with a HUGE disclaimer in bold letters:
:|"This amendemet shall take NO rights away from the States."
:|
:|This is why the framers of the 14th when discussing the scope of the
:|14th's enforcement reach never ever mentioned the first amendments
:|religious cluase. Bingham defined the provisions of the first amendment
:|to be enforced as freedom of speech and the press but never mentioned
:|the establishment clause because that was a right of the States. So the
:|14th clearly NEVER was designed or intended to make the Establishment
:|clause applicable to the States because it was not an amendment to
:|strip any rights from them!
:|
:|it's all bogus liberal work of fiction that has zero basis in
:|constitiutional authority.

And you are so full of it:
Perhaps you can explain just some of the following items that disagrees
with you unsubstantiated comments above:
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
* A Baptist minister and follow warrior with Jefferson, Madison and
others in the struggle for religious freedom gave this advice about
electing public officials: "...guard against those men who make a great
noise about religion..."
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm
* Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
* Madison's Arguments Against Special Religious Sanction of American
Government
http://candst.tripod.com/madlib.htm
o Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor2.htm
* Excerpts from James Madison's Autobiography
http://candst.tripod.com/madauto.html
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom (Passed December, 1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/statute.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
Warnings and other comments by a variety of men of the founding period and
after(1780 -1833, 1992, 1999)
* Dangers and Comments on "We the People;" Factions, Including
Religious Sects, & Denominations; Local & State Governments; Majority v.
Minority; Common Law and Other Things of Importance
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/dangers.htm
Thoughts on Power, Ceremonial Deism &Amp: Public Religion From a Variety of
Sources
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/c-deism.htm
***************************************************************************
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to SupremeCourt Case	31 Mar 2005 02:45:06 PM

The Bandit wrote:

Gregory Gadow wrote:

David Hartung wrote:
In the original (unamended) Constitution, I refer you to Article VI,

para 3,

clause 2: "[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a

qualification to any

office or public trust under the United States." The Court has held

almost from

the founding of the United States that this clause, unique among the

original

Constitution, extends to *all* levels of government, from President to

alderman.

Isn't that a limitation on the federal governement? States did use a
religious test for offices. For 300 years if you were not a christian
your options were extremely limited to ever being elected to office.

It has always been unconstitutional for any government entity to say, "You
must be a Baptist in order to hold a seat on the town council" or "Only
Catholics may serve in the State House of Representatives." In theory, an
atheist or Wiccan or Satanist can run for and win elected office; it would
be illegal to legislate otherwise.
In practice, however, such is not the case. If the electorate, as a whole,
wishes to have only Baptists on the town council or Catholics in the State
House, then that is who the electorate will put in to office. But that
comes down to voter views, not law. It would be just as unconstitutional to
say, "Sorry, we can't seat the winning candidate because we have too many
Baptists on the council. Go back and elect a Jew or something."

Under the 14th Amendment, "No state shall make or enforce any law which

shall

abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

... nor

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

laws."

Because the 1st Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme

Court,

establishes a right to religious belief -- that is to say, grants an
inviolateable priviledge to believe or not believe as personal

conscience

dictates -- the 14th Amendment binds states to guarantee that very same

right.

The problem with the above is the Religious Clause was a State right
and not a individule right and the reason the religious Clause was put
in the 1st amendment was to protect the State from being usurped by the
federal govt on all matters of religion.

The United States courts have long ruled that the religion clause of the
First Amendment reflects a personal right. Frankly, I value their legal
opinion over yours.

The Constitution left religious polices and laws with the States.

The body of court opinion speaks of a personal right with regards to
religion.

Another BIG problem with
the above is the fact the 14th amendment came with a HUGE bold letter
disclaimer that read "This amendment shall take no rights away from the
States."

Oh? Would you be so kind as to point out exactly where?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

If the 14th amendment takes no rights away from the States then it
cannot take the States right to religious legislation away.

Logical fallacy of a false premise. The amendment makes no such claim. It
defines "citizen of the United States", then expressly TAKES AWAY FROM
STATES the ability to make or enforce any law which limits the privileges
or protections of any citizen, TAKES AWAY FROM THE STATES the ability to
deprive any person life, liberty or property without due process of law and
TAKES AWAY FROM THE STATES the ability to deny any person (note: NOT just
citizens) within their jurisdictions the equal protection of the laws.
Further, the amendment declares that "Congress shall have power to enforce,
by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." All
conclusions based on this false premise are therefore invalid.

This is why
during the 14th's legislative debates Bingham, or anyone else, never
mentioned RELIGION and the first amendment religious clause. When
specifically addressing what rights the 14th would enforce of the 1st
amendment--freedom of speech and the press were outlined but never the
religious clause because that was a State right and beyond the scope of
the 14th.

It's all a bogus work of fiction by liberal justices that has no basis
in fact.

So the only time the United States Supreme Court has ruled on the matter of
religious protections via the 1st and 14th Amendments, it has been
dominated by "liberal justices" who rule with "no basis in fact?"
You might want to adjust your tin foil hat. Next thing you know, you will
be trying to say that the entire body of common law and judicial precedence
is all part of a vast, centuries old liberal conspiracy to destroy
everything the neo-conservative, fanatically devout Christian Founding
Fathers set out to create.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.

User: "The Bandit"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	31 Mar 2005 09:32:26 PM

Gregory Gadow wrote:

The United States courts have long ruled that the religion clause of

the

First Amendment reflects a personal right. Frankly, I value their

legal

opinion over yours.

States were known to limit certain secs from operating witrhin their
limits and that wasn't a constitutional issue. State Constitutions is
were the constititutional rights of religion were found, not in the
National Constitution....First Amendment Religious Clause was a
Federal Gogvernment limitation and not a State.

The body of court opinion speaks of a personal right with regards to
religion.

A court ruling calling a watermellon a apple doesn't make it so. The
Supreme Court always tends to weed out bad decesions sooner or
later.....

Another BIG problem with
the above is the fact the 14th amendment came with a HUGE bold

letter

disclaimer that read "This amendment shall take no rights away from

the

States."

Oh? Would you be so kind as to point out exactly where?

The adoption of this proposed [fourteenth] amendment will take from the
States no rights that belong to the the States. --Bingham Cong. Globe
pg 1090 39th Congress 1866
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating [enforcing the Fourteenth
Amendment] we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I
believe our dual system of government essential to our national
existence." Bingham, March 31, 1871, 42nd Congress Cong. Globe
There are three other disclaimers by him as well. Many who spoke on the
amendment also made it clear no State Rights would be taken. This was
the principle of the amendment in order to get it ratified by the
States since no State would have accepted it if it stuck the Federal
Govts nose in State business sort of speak.
.

User: "Martin Holterman"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to SupremeCourt Case	29 Mar 2005 02:46:10 PM

Gregory Gadow wrote:

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

Although there is no express rule to the effect, I think the
constitution would prohibit the government forcing everybody to drink
milk every day, unless there was a damn good reason.
Martin Holterman
.

User: "WF Peifer"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	29 Mar 2005 02:59:24 PM

"Martin Holterman" <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d2bpo2$cqm$3@reader13.wxs.nl...

Although there is no express rule to the effect, I think the
constitution would prohibit the government forcing everybody to drink
milk every day, unless there was a damn good reason.

A good thing, too. I'm severely lactose-intolerant, and would end up in the
hospital.
.

User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	29 Mar 2005 03:18:20 PM

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:59:24 -0700, "WF Peifer" <wfpeifer@nospam.com>
wrote:

Although there is no express rule to the effect, I think the
constitution would prohibit the government forcing everybody to drink
milk every day, unless there was a damn good reason.

A good thing, too. I'm severely lactose-intolerant, and would end up in the
hospital.

Before the 14th Am, the US Constitution prohibited the federal govt
from doing anything that was not specifically authorized explicitly by
the Constitution. It was up to the States to decide whether you had to
drink milk or not. That's when the United States was Plural.
With the 14th Am, you lost your citizenship in the State where you
resided and became a citizen of a new entity called the United States
Singular, a fascist dictatorship.
Look up the words "fascism" and "dictatorship" and see if I am wrong
in this claim. You do not need goose-stepping SS troops in the streets
to have a fascist dictatorship using the general definition of those
terms.
Can someone explain why the symbol for a fascist dictatorship, namely
the Fasces (reed bundle and battle axe) is emblazoned on the front
wall of the House of Representatives?
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you
set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
.

User: "Martin Holterman"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to SupremeCourt Case	29 Mar 2005 05:15:19 PM

Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:59:24 -0700, "WF Peifer" <wfpeifer@nospam.com>
wrote:

Although there is no express rule to the effect, I think the
constitution would prohibit the government forcing everybody to drink
milk every day, unless there was a damn good reason.

A good thing, too. I'm severely lactose-intolerant, and would end up in the
hospital.

What about the 10th amendment? Contrary to art II of the Articles of
Confederation, they left out the word expresly, as in "expressly
delegated to the United States". This means that implied powers are also
possible. I think the 10th amendment predates the 14th by quite a while.

With the 14th Am, you lost your citizenship in the State where you
resided and became a citizen of a new entity called the United States
Singular, a fascist dictatorship.

Look up the words "fascism" and "dictatorship" and see if I am wrong
in this claim. You do not need goose-stepping SS troops in the streets
to have a fascist dictatorship using the general definition of those
terms.

Can someone explain why the symbol for a fascist dictatorship, namely
the Fasces (reed bundle and battle axe) is emblazoned on the front
wall of the House of Representatives?

The wall of the House predates Mussolini. The fasces is a Roman symbol
symbolising how a society is more than the sum of its parts.
Martin Holterman
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical toSupremeCourt Case	29 Mar 2005 03:18:06 PM

Martin Holterman wrote:

Gregory Gadow wrote:

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

Although there is no express rule to the effect, I think the
constitution would prohibit the government forcing everybody to drink
milk every day, unless there was a damn good reason.

You are breaking down the analogy. The government is not (yet) trying to require
that everyone believe a particular set of religious dogmas. They ARE trying to
endorse a particular set of religious dogmas. They can do that with milk (under
the interstate commerce power of Congress) but may not do that with religion.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.

User: "Martin Holterman"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical toSupremeCourt Case	29 Mar 2005 05:12:36 PM

Gregory Gadow wrote:

Martin Holterman wrote:

Gregory Gadow wrote:

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage when it
endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually judges
out there with complete intact functional brains.....

Although there is no express rule to the effect, I think the
constitution would prohibit the government forcing everybody to drink
milk every day, unless there was a damn good reason.

True
.

User: "The Bandit"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	30 Mar 2005 06:22:42 AM

Gregory Gadow wrote:

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage

when it

endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually

judges

out there with complete intact functional brains.....

The United States Constitution does not prohibit government from

endorsing

milk, does it? The United States Constitution does, however, prohibit
government from endorsing religion. Those of us who actually DO have
complete, intact, functional brains are capable of understanding the
distinction.

Lemme ask you this: Was it not at one time a State right under the
Constitution to determine its own policies and relationship on all
matters religion?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to Supreme Court Case	30 Mar 2005 01:47:46 PM

The Bandit wrote:

Gregory Gadow wrote:

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage

when it

endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually

judges

out there with comple te intact functional brains.....

The United States Constitution does not prohibit government from

endorsing

milk, does it? The United States Constitution does, however,

prohibit

government from endorsing religion. Those of us who actuall y DO

have

complete, intact, functional brains are capable of understanding

the

distinction.

Lemme ask you this: Was it not at one time a State right under the
Constitution to determine its own policies and relationship on all
matters religion?

Ever heard of the 14th Amendent?
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: Appeals Court Upholds Ten Commandments in Case Identical to SupremeCourt Case	30 Mar 2005 02:29:39 PM

The Bandit wrote:

Gregory Gadow wrote:

The Bandit wrote:

"A government does not 'establish milk as the national beverage

when it

endorses milk as part of a sound diet.'" Damn, there is actually

judges

out there with complete intact functional brains.....

The United States Constitution does not prohibit government from

endorsing

Lemme ask you this: Was it not at one time a State right under the
Constitution to determine its own policies and relationship on all
matters religion?

It still is: the last time I checked, the Tenth Amendment was still in
effect (although the neo-cons seem hell-bent to destroy that, what with
violating a state's right to legalize marijuana for medical use, permit
death with dignity and appy long-established family law with regards to
medical power of attorney. But I digress.)
However, there is also the little matter of the 14th Amendment. That
requires states to guarantee all rights otherwise guaranteed to American
citizens. As established by the United States Supreme Court, since the 1st
Amendment creates a right to believe or not believe according to personal
conscience, and since federal favoring of one religion or set of religious
dogmas over another violates that right, that state governments were
likewise bound by the 1st Amendment.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.