Religions > Atheism > Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2005 02:51:27 PM |
| Object: |
Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments |
Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments
http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/ip_template.asp?upid=8446
[excerpt]
By June Mathews
October 27, 2005
TALKING RELIGION — Panelists Marci Hamilton (left) and Jay Sekulow gave
opposing viewpoints during an Oct. 13 discussion at Samford University on
the public display of the Ten Commandments. The public display of the
Ten Commandments was the hot-button topic at an Oct. 13 panel discussion at
Samford University.
Four distinguished panelists assembled there for the dialogue, titled
The Ten Commandments on Display: A Discussion on Religion, Law and Public
Life. The program was a joint presentation of Beeson Divinity School and
Cumberland School of Law.
The all-Christian panel provided the audience with a view of the
diverse approaches to the Ten Commandments question, even among people with
similar religious beliefs.
Marci Hamilton, a professor at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva
University in New York, said courts should consider believers and
nonbelievers in the decision-making process in an effort not to harm
either. If courts do not follow that guideline, she said, then they run the
risk of disenfranchising those who don’t consider themselves religious.
“Is this only a government for people of certain religious beliefs?”
asked Hamilton, a self-labeled conservative as to the exercise of free
religion. “Should the government have the power to speak on behalf of a
certain set of believers? We’ve really lost sight of the ball because of
the political discourse.”
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice
in Washington, argued that in terms of history, public displays of the
Commandments make sense. “I think there’s a logical and legitimate reason
for displaying the Ten Commandments and that is the impact they have had on
the development of law in Western civilization,” he said. “We don’t ignore
the heritage of who we are and how we got here.”
[end excerpt]
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Debate on public display of Commandments fails 10th Amendment test |
30 Oct 2005 01:01:01 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 28 Oct 2005 22:48:55 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
A "letter" from Jefferson to (even) Santa Clause isn't LAW
So what if Jefferson is dead?
Because "what Jefferson said/says" isn't law.
Shame on you! You snipped the paragraph from the Everson opinion that
shows that the Supreme Court used part of Jefferson's Danbury writing
to help justify it's twisted interpretation of the establishment clause
without noting so. Here it is again:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164."
Beware of church-state separation discussions like the debate on the
public display of Commandments. Beware because they fail to reference
the 10th Amendment. Separationists cannot afford for the 10th
Amendment to be brought up in discussions concerning our religious
freedoms. This is because separationists don't want the public to
know that the 10th Amendment automatically reserved for the states the
power to legislate religion since the 1st Amendment prohibited this
power only to the federal government.
"Article 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Keep in mind that most of the garbage that you hear about the
establishment clause and the 14th Amendment came from the Everson case.
With respect to the Everson case, a corrupt majority of justices split
the Court 5 to 4 to force their special interest agenda into the 1st
and 14th Amendments.
But most importantly, note that the Everson opinion doesn't mention the
10th Amendment, so the Everson opinion fails the 10th Amendment test.
For activist judges who are forcing their absolute church-state
separation agenda into key amendments, the 10th Amendment is simply too
much of a loose canon to even mention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate on public display of Commandments fails 10th Amendment test |
30 Oct 2005 02:24:23 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On 28 Oct 2005 22:48:55 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
A "letter" from Jefferson to (even) Santa Clause isn't LAW
So what if Jefferson is dead?
Because "what Jefferson said/says" isn't law.
Shame on you! You snipped the paragraph from the Everson opinion that
shows that the Supreme Court used part of Jefferson's Danbury writing
to help justify it's twisted interpretation of the establishment clause
without noting so.
That was not at all part of the "justification", which was presented
in several paragraphs before the one you quoted. The Jefferson quote
is a rhetorical *summary* of the rest of the paragraph. It adds
nothing new; it justifies nothing. There is NOTHING in the Jefferson
quote that wasn't already expressed more verbosely earlier in the
paragraph.
Here it is again:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164."
Beware of church-state separation discussions like the debate on the
public display of Commandments. Beware because they fail to reference
the 10th Amendment.
The 10th amendment is irrelevant to the enforcement of the 14th
amendment which is a Federal power expressly granted by the 14th
itself.
But most importantly, note that the Everson opinion doesn't mention the
10th Amendment,
It doesn't need to, since the 10th amendment had been ruled irrelevant
to the enforcement of the 14th amendment by prior cases which were
incorporated in the Everson decision by the principle of stare
decisis.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Pennington" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments |
27 Oct 2005 07:47:45 PM |
|
|
Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:
buckeye-ELO@noapam.net wrote:
Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments
http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/ip_template.asp?upid=8446
[end excerpt]
Panelist Thomas C. Berg uses the term "government" inappropriately as
do most people these days:
"Thomas C. Berg, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of
Law in Minneapolis, said the controversy has resulted from an evolving
conflict between two basic principles on which the nation was founded.
One, that the government should not take sides in religious matters,
and two, the government can make general statements about God."
Berg fails to understand that the Founding Fathers regarded the
goverment as two distinct entities, the federal and state governments,
each having different responsibilities:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
Except that the founding fathers who argued for the rights of conscience
clearly argued that they should not be infringed by any level of civil
authority. This is clear from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments:
<http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html>
"Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous
policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of
every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an
accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the
Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the
persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. IT DEGRADES FROM THE
EQUAL RANK OF CITIZENS ALL THOSE WHOSE OPINIONS IN RELIGION DO NOT BEND
TO THOSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. Distant as it may be in its
present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree.
The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of
intolerance."
The argument[*], while presented against a specific Virginia legislative
proposal, applies to *any* exercise of governmental preference for one
religious opinion over others.
[*] The entire argument, not just the bit I've quoted here.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments |
28 Oct 2005 01:44:48 AM |
|
|
Craig Pennington wrote:
Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:
buckeye-ELO@noapam.net wrote:
Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments
http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/ip_template.asp?upid=8446
[end excerpt]
Panelist Thomas C. Berg uses the term "government" inappropriately as
do most people these days:
"Thomas C. Berg, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of
Law in Minneapolis, said the controversy has resulted from an evolving
conflict between two basic principles on which the nation was founded.
One, that the government should not take sides in religious matters,
and two, the government can make general statements about God."
Berg fails to understand that the Founding Fathers regarded the
goverment as two distinct entities, the federal and state governments,
each having different responsibilities:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
Except that the founding fathers who argued for the rights of conscience
clearly argued that they should not be infringed by any level of civil
authority. This is clear from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments:
<http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html>
"Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous
policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of
every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an
accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the
Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the
persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. IT DEGRADES FROM THE
EQUAL RANK OF CITIZENS ALL THOSE WHOSE OPINIONS IN RELIGION DO NOT BEND
TO THOSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. Distant as it may be in its
present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree.
The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of
intolerance."
The argument[*], while presented against a specific Virginia legislative
proposal, applies to *any* exercise of governmental preference for one
religious opinion over others.
[*] The entire argument, not just the bit I've quoted here.
Neither Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious
Assessments or the 14th Amendment made the 10th Amendment go away:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Pennington" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments |
28 Oct 2005 11:19:57 AM |
|
|
Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:
Craig Pennington wrote:
[snip]
Except that the founding fathers who argued for the rights of conscience
clearly argued that they should not be infringed by any level of civil
authority. This is clear from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments:
<http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html>
"Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous
policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of
every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an
accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the
Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the
persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. IT DEGRADES FROM THE
EQUAL RANK OF CITIZENS ALL THOSE WHOSE OPINIONS IN RELIGION DO NOT BEND
TO THOSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. Distant as it may be in its
present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree.
The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of
intolerance."
The argument[*], while presented against a specific Virginia legislative
proposal, applies to *any* exercise of governmental preference for one
religious opinion over others.
[*] The entire argument, not just the bit I've quoted here.
Neither Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious
Assessments or the 14th Amendment made the 10th Amendment go away:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
Except that there is no legitimate power for any level of civil
authority to infringe on unalienable rights -- and the rights of
conscience are unalienable. The States do not have the authority to
outlaw, say, the rite of Baptism. It is simply not a legitimate power.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments |
27 Oct 2005 09:55:26 PM |
|
|
Craig Pennington wrote:
Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:
buckeye-ELO@noapam.net wrote:
Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments
http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/ip_template.asp?upid=8446
[end excerpt]
Panelist Thomas C. Berg uses the term "government" inappropriately as
do most people these days:
"Thomas C. Berg, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of
Law in Minneapolis, said the controversy has resulted from an evolving
conflict between two basic principles on which the nation was founded.
One, that the government should not take sides in religious matters,
and two, the government can make general statements about God."
Berg fails to understand that the Founding Fathers regarded the
goverment as two distinct entities, the federal and state governments,
each having different responsibilities:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
Except that the founding fathers who argued for the rights of conscience
clearly argued that they should not be infringed by any level of civil
authority. This is clear from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments:
<http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html>
Yes, before the 14th Amendment was made some states abused their powers
by abridging the federal rights of US citizens. But regardless of
Professor Berg's use the the word government which implies both federal
and state governments, the 14th Amendment did nothing to change the
fact that the 10th Amendment automatically reserved for the states the
power to legislate religion since the 1st Amendment explicitly
prohibited this power only to the federal government. This is
evidenced by the fact that, unlike the 21th Amendment which explicitly
repealed the 18th Amendment, the 14th Amendment doesn't reference the
10th Amendment in any way.
"Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous
policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of
every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an
accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the
Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the
persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. IT DEGRADES FROM THE
EQUAL RANK OF CITIZENS ALL THOSE WHOSE OPINIONS IN RELIGION DO NOT BEND
TO THOSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. Distant as it may be in its
present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree.
The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of
intolerance."
The argument[*], while presented against a specific Virginia legislative
proposal, applies to *any* exercise of governmental preference for one
religious opinion over others.
[*] The entire argument, not just the bit I've quoted here.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Pennington" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments |
28 Oct 2005 11:19:57 AM |
|
|
Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:
Craig Pennington wrote:
Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:
[snip]
Except that the founding fathers who argued for the rights of conscience
clearly argued that they should not be infringed by any level of civil
authority. This is clear from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments:
<http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html>
Yes, before the 14th Amendment was made some states abused their powers
by abridging the federal rights of US citizens.
Not merely federal rights -- unalienable rights. It was an illegitimate
exercise of civil authority.
But regardless of
Professor Berg's use the the word government which implies both federal
and state governments,
When unalienable rights are being infringed by a civil authority, it
does not matter whether it is federal, state or local. Such
infringements are unjust.
the 14th Amendment did nothing to change the
fact that the 10th Amendment automatically reserved for the states the
power to legislate religion
The 10th Amendment does not reserve to the States any power to infringe
on unalienable rights, since such infringement is not within the
legitimate authority of any level of government.
since the 1st Amendment explicitly
prohibited this power only to the federal government.
You must skip past the 9th Amendment often on your way to the 10th. The
Constitution is *not* an enumeration of rights; it is an enumeration of
powers granted to the federal government by the people.
This is
evidenced by the fact that, unlike the 21th Amendment which explicitly
repealed the 18th Amendment, the 14th Amendment doesn't reference the
10th Amendment in any way.
And the 10th Amendment doesn't mention religion, yet you find in it a
State power to outlaw Trinitarianism.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Western World" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious liberty experts debate public display of Commandments |
01 Nov 2005 06:45:34 PM |
|
|
After the rulings this year, I put this essay together. It covers
constitution writing from the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641
thru to the US Constitution and the Amendments.
US Constitution V Ten Commandments:
Is American law Reeeeeeeeeally based on the ten Commandments?
http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/TENCOMMANDMENTS/
See also:
http://community-2.webtv.net/westernmind/WASHINGTONDC
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
