DavidMash, do you really believe we weren't founded as a religious nation, and that most of the "God" stuff only came into being in the 50s. I certainly do not claim to be the most well read historian, nor am I able to debate renowned theologists on the various religions. However, I don't have to read much to know that this country, until the last century (or at least the past 50 years), has been at its core a religious nation. George Washington wrote prolifically about religion. Just one example:

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.

It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being.

Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to."

By the same token, there were founding fathers who did not share Washington's convictions. BUT, they did not ever intend to deprive him of the right to express his beliefs as he saw fit. So, what about separation of church and state? That little amendment, my friend, can be credited as belonging to the 20th century. Wasn't in the constitution until an amendment put it there (actually, I don't even think it was an admendment. If memory serves, it was in the 40s or 50s and the Supreme Court was looking at some state vs. religion issue and they made reference to the "wall of separation between church and state". In any event, many people think it's in the constitution, when it's not). The constitution meant to block establishment of a state religion (as in federal). We could get into a whole different discussion as to whether it ever intended to tell individual states what to do. Basically, saying that this great country is not founded on religious principles, that its strength and law did not derive from the teachings of the bible, is simply a 20th century distortion of the facts whereby so many of our populace hear it on T.V., read it in the paper, or through a media such as this, and they accept it. Yet, many (most?) have never picked up a copy of the constitution to see for themselves what it really says. Whether or not anyone agrees with my religious beliefs is entirely up to the individual. But, to live in this country I think people should at least be required to read the constitution and form their own opinions rather than believing what others tell them. :)

Well said, Darrell!

I'll piggy back on a point you made about our country being founded on the basic principles found in the Bible.

Because most of us believe in basic teachings found in the Bible, I'd say that our country is basically judeo-christian.

It is in the Constitution. Once in Article VI:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

and again (but more famously) in the First Amendment:

"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."

Also from Article VI:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

According to http://www.law.emory.edu, the way I am reading this is that the first 10 amendments were part of the original Constitution. So at least on the Federal level, there was a very clear intent so have a separation of church and State.

And just so we are clear on what it we are debating,

Amendment I.
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.



The first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States (and two others, one of which failed of ratification and the other which later became the 27th amendment) were proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the First Congress on September 25, 1789. The first ten amendments were ratified by the following States, and the notifications of ratification by the Governors thereof were successively communicated by the President to Congress: New Jersey, November 20, 1789; Maryland, December 19, 1789; North Carolina, December 22, 1789; South Carolina, January 19, 1790; New Hampshire, January 25, 1790; Delaware, January 28, 1790; New York, February 24, 1790; Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; Vermont, November 3, 1791; and Virginia, December 15, 1791. Ratification was completed on December 15, 1791. The amendments were subsequently ratified by the legislatures of Massachusetts, March 2, 1939; Georgia, March 18, 1939; and Connecticut, April 19, 1939..


Yes, I do believe that this nation was not founded on religion. A majority of the people who came to the Americas were seeking to escape religious persecution. While I have no doubt that they were very religious but it seems to me that they were very careful to do all possible to ensure that it did not happen again.

Now as far as the states are concerned. If I remember my Constitutional law classes from college, no state law may violate any Federal law. They make laws that address internal issues not address by the Constitution but if Congress passes a law outlawing abortion for instance (just gave it as a example, lets not get into that one please) no state may pass a law allowing it. The Constitution always supercedes state laws. I believe AnthonyB stated this as well.

Whether or not the 10 commandments are related to Jesus Christ in way is irrelevant. They are biblical in origin and that is the point. You have a state court displaying something of a biblical nature. It is religion and I, as a minority in this nation am offended. I do not want to be accosted by any religious icons in any public place. I have no interest in seeing a nativity scene on any state property any more than I wish to see a pentagram. They are both religious and one is no more valid than the other.


Whether or not this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs or not I believe could be debated as well. I would argue that the 10 commandments were based on logic as much as anything else. Men were seeking to find away to control the society that thy found them selves in. The set down various “laws” just like a modern day court would do. Unfortunately they had not precedents to fall back on so they said “god” made these laws.

My opinion is that the origin is irrelevant. We live in a society that attracts people from all over the world. We cannot afford to have a state judge running around thinking that he is god and that all other beliefs, regardless of how offensive we find them, are irrelevant.

Neither of these in any way dictate the separation of church and state. The intent was to protect religious freedom for a God fearing nation, not to disenfranchise the people from it. Since I posted earlier without reading The First Amendment as a refresher, I went back and read the Bill of Rights. I also understand what Article VI states. It's 20th century liberalism that has changed the way both the First Amendment and Article VI are interpreted. Also, interpretation by our judiciary as to what the Fourteenth Amendment meant has been comical. For 150 years prudence prevailed in this nation, within all three branches of government. Only during the past 60-70 years has so much misguided, and often immoral, interpretation taken place. As a side note, for those who are so sure that the constitution requires the separation we are discussing, I offer the following constitutional quote: "In the US, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church". If you like that, you might also be interested in knowing that only two letters were left out--the letters SR, after US. You see, this was Article 52 of the former Soviet Union's constitution (to be fair, it was the second of a two part article. The first offered freedom to choose a religion, but in practice, it didn't exist). Their decision to remove God from everything apparently served them well. ;)

Then I have to ask you what you mean by "separation of church and state." To me, this means that government is not in the business of endorsing or supporting a religious viewpoint, and that religion is not in the business of endorsing or supporting the government. And when I read the Constitution, this is exactly the message that I get:

When I see "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," I take it to mean that government is explicitly barred from endorsing or supporting a religious viewpoint, and when I see "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," I take it to mean that religion is not to be involved in determining who runs the government.

Frankly, I think the position that America was founding by God-fearing peoples intending to create a Christian society makes the argument even more emphatic. It's one thing for a non-Christian to write those words, but it's an entirely different thing for devoutly religious individuals to make those statements. They could have easily remained silent, but they obviously felt strongly enough about government and religion that decided to erect those barriers.

You could also ask the British and the French how well their state-religion societies served them. My understanding is that it eventually led to a couple of rather violent revolutions by people tired of being oppressed.

-anthony

OK, let me change my mind - NONE of the above posts explains why the federal government has ANY RIGHT to prohibit the religious artifacts or reference being displayed in the courthouse or any official place. If the US laws are based on the 10 Comandments (and they are) than how in heck displaying them violates the separation of government and religion??? I just don't get it. This display DOES NOT establishes a government sponsored religion (aka Anglican Church!!). In fact, the order to remove it seems to be in clear VIOLATION of the Constitution (i.e. prohibiting religious expresison.

As to being offended by it, well, atheists and other religions offend me, so I want you to stop or get the hell out of US. How is that? well, you have the same right demanding removal of this display as I have demanding the above!

I believe that anyone offended by Judeo-christianity should move to Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim Monarchy. There you are not only forbidden to express another religion, you are forbidden from being offended, period. Or they will cut your head off :cool:

The Constitution exists to protect individual rights. Not the "rights" of government, which are explicitly limited. (Man, where are the libertarians when you need them?)

It has NOTHING to do with whether someone is offended by the display. In fact, I wish people would stop saying that, because it's totally irrelevant.

The whole point of keeping religion out of government is 1. to protect religious freedom 2. guarantee equal protection under the laws.

What do people think HAPPENS when you have a state-sponsored religion? All other forms of religious expression (or non expression) become prohibited, either by decree or by societal pressure. I think all the "Post 10 Commandments in our Courthouses" people should actually GO to a country where they do just that. How much religious freedom do you think people actually HAVE in Saudi Arabia?

And what do you think goes through people's heads when they walk into a courtroom and see the 10 Commandments mounted on the wall next to the judge? You think a Muslim (or an atheist, or a Jew - oh look, he's one of those people who crucified Christ) will get the same fair trial a Christian would get? Replace the 10 Commandments with the Koran, and presto - welcome to the Taliban.

You think I'm kidding? Are we not talking about the same country in which black people were regularly lynched not fifty years ago? Are we not talking about the same country in which people are actively trading away due process, equal protection, and unreasonable search and seizure rights for "better" domestic security?

So much for Constitutional rights.

-anthony

Anthony - hear hear .. I think that wraps it up!

Scotland, Scotland? I forget, where is that in the United States?:D

Someone said 'those who remember the past are blind in one eye, those who do not are blind in both' (Russian/Polish proverb?)

But on the other hand, we need to be very cautious how much we use it as a template or justification for the present. I, personally, am happy to see religion fade away in Scotland, because, as Botnst describes, it has been the cause, or used to justify, the very opposite of the highly laudable (for the most part)moral teachings (still going on in N.Ireland). When it's organised, things get ugly, people get marginalised, people get oppressed. It's a cliche, but it really should be a personal matter, behind closed doors, like sex!

The church in UK (well, England - Scotland is another -long- story) has dimished into a kind of sad middle-class soap opera, where bishops don't believe in the ressurection, etc.

btw, perhaps this is an unwarranted liberty, but I don't see much difference between the USA/Canada and most of Europe. I'm happy to have you guys tell us where we're going wrong!

How about the army :)

As a counter example, privatisation of the railways in UK has been a disaster (literally - quite a few train wrecks). Cost billions in goverment bail-outs.



..getting off topic a bit here!

Darrell, I fail to see how preventing a religious display on government grounds inhibits you in any way from practicing your faith. Please clarify that for me. Have you been restricted from going to your church? Has the government told you that you may not pray in your home?

Fine. Keep your bible stuff in the court house as long as I can place a pentagram and a Buda beside it. Thing is, if I can put up stuff so can everyone else. So I imagine there will be some voodoo dolls, some Hindu stuff, some Native American artifacts. Seems like it will get kind of crowded. If one religion gets floor space, they all have to. If they don't it's called a DICTATORSHIP!! What, you don't want all that other heathen stuff by your precious bible? Simple solution is to take it off government land.

Gotta love those “liberal courts”. LOL

Actually, they haven't prevented me from doing those things in my church or in my home. Nor did they prevent me from displaying paintings in my office of a Christian theme while an active duty military officer, and I still display them in my office today as part of a large, publicly held corporation. But if the government cannot prevent my free exercise of religion, why should it require that I not practice my faith in the open, boldly? If a judge wants to put up a pentagram, then I say go for it. That would be his/her right to their first amendment freedom. It would likely be political suicide, but hey, no one is forcing their choice. In fact, I think it would be rather interesting to know what the beliefs of our judiciary are. Freedom from religious persecution is a great thing, so each should be allowed to practice what they believe, and not be forced to hide it because it might offend someone. Even if I do disagree with them and believe that they are misguided, I do believe in each individuals right to believe what they want.

According to the news, it looks like the Alabama Supreme Court blink'd in their staring contest with the Federal Court.