Oklahoma court: Ten Commandments Must Come Down

[unbound]

http://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-court...164936584.html

THIS IS NOT TO BE A RELIGIOUS CONVERSATION

But instead, a conversation about our constitution, and how it handles these situations. Everyone is quick to write this off as separation of church and state. But the Constitution does not guarantee this separation (that I can find). Instead, the establishment clause, which is based on the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom written by Thomas Jefferson, says that the state cannot impose a religion on anyone, and that all civil rights will be the same for everyone, regardless of religious beliefs.

Having the ten commandments posted is not imposing a religion on someone. But if the majority in an area want it, the constitution would not ban that act. Just like, in theory, if the majority wanted a satanic sculpture, it would not ban that act either. But just because the ten commandments are posted, does not mean that a group of 10 people have the right to post a satanic sculpture on public property.

So overall, for discussion: people often cite the constitution granting separation of church and state as an argument for not allowing things like the ten commandments being posted in a public location. But I'm just not seeing that argument. Am I missing a part of the constitution that separately addresses this?

This is not asking your opinion if they should be posted, but trying to understand from more of a legal perspective.

From a legal perspective, the 1st amendment is indeed the primary driver ("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 Supreme Court has long held that the government may not take any action that endorses a specific religious belief based on that amendment. Since the 10 commandments are explicitly supporting a religious purpose, they are almost always found to be in violation of the constitution (some courts have allowed the 10 commandments, but usually because of tradition of an old monument to avoid the inherent religious issue).

Conceptually, the reason for this separation by the founding fathers was to avoid religion getting entangled into government matters and vice versa. Thomas Jefferson expanded on this understanding with his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802:

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed)
Th Jeffersone
Jan.1.1802.

Another important thing that the founder fathers understood that many people today fail to understand is the concept of "tyranny of the majority". The founding fathers understood this (James Madison wrote about it in a letter to Jefferson) since many people who originally came to the US (under their own will) did so to avoid the majority rule mentality (especially around religion) that prevented them from worshiping as they saw fit, living their lives as they saw fit, or put undue pressure on them just because they weren't in the majority faith or a majority group.

Keep in mind that you are free to put up a 10 commandments monument on your land if you wish. The government, however, can not do such things since they are required to support all citizens of the country, not just a majority.

[PACOX]

Stupid. I think images of the 10 Commandments, Hammurabi Code, and other ancient codes of law have a place in courts...

[draykorinee]

Salty tears, glad to see it down.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yeah, I can't agree with this, if the 10 Commandments weren't hurting anybody.

[Druover]

From a legal perspective, the 1st amendment is indeed the primary driver ("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 Supreme Court has long held that the government may not take any action that endorses a specific religious belief based on that amendment. Since the 10 commandments are explicitly supporting a religious purpose, they are almost always found to be in violation of the constitution (some courts have allowed the 10 commandments, but usually because of tradition of an old monument to avoid the inherent religious issue).

Another important thing that the founder fathers understood that many people today fail to understand is the concept of "tyranny of the majority". The founding fathers understood this (James Madison wrote about it in a letter to Jefferson) since many people who originally came to the US (under their own will) did so to avoid the majority rule mentality (especially around religion) that prevented them from worshiping as they saw fit, living their lives as they saw fit, or put undue pressure on them just because they weren't in the majority faith or a majority group.

Keep in mind that you are free to put up a 10 commandments monument on your land if you wish. The government, however, can not do such things since they are required to support all citizens of the country, not just a majority.

This was a great read, but I still think there is a lapse in the argument. I do not see how having the ten commandments posted violates: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." And how does posting this prevent people from "worshiping as they see fit". Again, a great read, but I think applying the arguments you are describing to something like posting the ten commandments is really a stretch. Implementing the ten commandments as law would be in violation of these arguments.

[Bakis]

Yeah, I can't agree with this, if the 10 Commandments weren't hurting anybody.

Pretty sane to remove it though even if we disregard the OK constitution.
Where do state draw the line of which faiths that qualify for public property to put up statues at?
It would become a mess.

[Endus]

Everyone is quick to write this off as separation of church and state. But the Constitution does not guarantee this separation (that I can find). Instead, the establishment clause, which is based on the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom written by Thomas Jefferson, says that the state cannot impose a religion on anyone, and that all civil rights will be the same for everyone, regardless of religious beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separa..._Supreme_Court

You're wrong. The First Amendment has been understood to mean exactly what you're claiming it does not for almost 150 years.

That base error is what the rest of your argument hinged upon, and without that, it collapses.

[Stormdash]

Stupid. I think images of the 10 Commandments, Hammurabi Code, and other ancient codes of law have a place in courts...

Indeed. There's something to be said from it as a pure 'legal history' adornment, i.e. the history of laws to which mankind has organized and adhered. But then, try teaching the Bible as literature and see how well that argument flies in that context. But in that sense the Ten Commandments would be no more or less out of place in an American courthouse than would be a display of Magna Carta Libertatum or the Charter of the Forest or the Articles of Confederation.

[Sunseeker]

Having a religious document in a government building is essentially an attempt to say that said religious document is the basis, or a guiding principle in our government. IE: the religion governments some aspect of how the government governs the people. So yes, saying that a specific religion governs the government is an establishment of that religion governing the people.

[Youn]

....and now I do:
§ 5. Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used,
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination,
or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister,
or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

That seems pretty cut and clear. Oklahoma doesn't want public buildings used for any religion. Pretty, cut and dry.

You cannot really argue that the 10 commandments aren't religious.

[Stormdash]

Having a religious document in a government building is essentially an attempt to say that said religious document is the basis, or a guiding principle in our government. IE: the religion governments some aspect of how the government governs the people. So yes, saying that a specific religion governs the government is an establishment of that religion governing the people.

Well, two points that I think outweigh that highly speculative concern --

1) The 10 Commandments are, first and foremost, a body of law around which human society has organized itself historically, among many and many. Hammurabi's Code another, and those others I mentioned. In a place where law is applied and claims adjudicated, it's fitting that any one or combination of those most historically influential and familiar of laws be honored. Not much unlike having a Shakespeare statue outside a community theatre, or something. And,

2) the 10 Commandments do in fact form part of the specific legal history of the very laws applied in an Oklahoma courthouse and pretty much any courthouse in the Anglosphere because of it's place in the pedigree dating back through English common law and prior.

[PACOX]

Indeed. There's something to be said from it as a pure 'legal history' adornment, i.e. the history of laws to which mankind has organized and adhered. But then, try teaching the Bible as literature and see how well that argument flies in that context. But in that sense the Ten Commandments would be no more or less out of place in an American courthouse than would be a display of Magna Carta Libertatum or the Charter of the Forest or the Articles of Confederation.

You're allowed to teach the Bible as ancient literature, same way learn about Greek/Roman/Norse gods to exam ancient lit.

[Rukh]

That seems pretty cut and clear. Oklahoma doesn't want public buildings used for any religion. Pretty, cut and dry.

You cannot really argue that the 10 commandments aren't religious.

Yeah I don't know how it was possibly found state-constitutional in the first place. The Oklahoma Constitution is pretty specific about using public property for religious uses being prohibited.

[PACOX]

That seems pretty cut and clear. Oklahoma doesn't want public buildings used for any religion. Pretty, cut and dry.

You cannot really argue that the 10 commandments aren't religious.

They are religious, a lot of things can be considered religious,but they aren't being used in a religious context. No one is tried according to the 10 Commandments.

[Rukh]

They are religious, a lot of things can be considered religious,but they aren't being used in a religious context. No one is tried according to the 10 Commandments.

They are religious symbolism. As you say, no one is tried according to the 10 commandments.

[Templar 331]

But instead, a conversation about our constitution, and how it handles these situations. Everyone is quick to write this off as separation of church and state. But the Constitution does not guarantee this separation (that I can find). Instead, the establishment clause, which is based on the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom written by Thomas Jefferson, says that the state cannot impose a religion on anyone, and that all civil rights will be the same for everyone, regardless of religious beliefs.

violates the state's constitutional ban on using public property to benefit a religion

Wrong constitution dude. But glad it didn't have to go all the way up to SCOTUS. I've already had enough religious arguments with friends of friends on Facebook. :/

[Doctor Amadeus]

Pretty sane to remove it though even if we disregard the OK constitution.
Where do state draw the line of which faiths that qualify for public property to put up statues at?
It would become a mess.

Nope, it wouldn't it should have been a resounding NO, the 10 commandments are hurting nobody, and the effort to remove them is based on idealism, rather than the 10 Commandments actually being a problem being where they are.

[The Penguin]

I think that for the government to have "separation of church and state," then any government establishment shouldn't have anything religion related attached to it.

I agree with this to a degree. Historic origins value ought be respected in the country regardless of whether Christian, Native American or so on. That being said, I feel that all religions should be given the same sort of "I don't care" attitude from the Government.

By this I mean a Muslim that is bitching that he has to pray at X times in Public Schools should be told "No. This is the Public School schedule. You can pray during your recess, which is the same as every other child's recess. Conform to it." I mean if your going to expect one religion to acquiesce X or Y, then all faiths need to be put under the same scenario. If the Lefay Satanist dislikes it, he should find a private School, as should anyone else who feels that way.. right?

Since I doubt this sort of actual equality will happen however; it instead shows the disparity and true purpose behind the actions, which is yet another attempt to deconstruct the origins of the Country. This Ten Commandments must go spiel has little to do with someone being actually offended, and more to do with removing another national monument with a historic context (the same as the Parthenon in Greece) in the name of "progress". Except progress is really about remaking the history of the country. Fundamental Transformation Amirite?

I mean I am sure it's pretty damned offensive for an Athiest to throw up their Dogma on Times Square during Christmas, but hey equal freedoms for each religion; even the one that believes in nothing existing. Lets just say that all religions can't express themselves in any way, shape or form.


I'll plant some Ivy to honor the Green Man. Oh wait. Ivy on the walls of Colleges is religious symbolism?! Get it down!


See how ridiculous this line of commentary is?

[Kalis]

I agree with this, and I feel that all religions should be given the same sort of "I don't care" attitude from the Government. By this I mean a Muslim that is bitching that he has to pray at X times in Public Schools should be told "No. This is the Public School schedule. Conform to it." I mean if your going to expect one religion to acquiesce X or Y, then all faiths need to be put under the same scenario. If the Lefay Satanist dislikes it, he should find a private School, as should anyone else who feels that way.. right?

Since I doubt this sort of actual equality will happen however; it instead shows the disparity and true purpose behind the actions, which is yet another attempt to deconstruct the origins of the Country. This Ten Commandments must go spiel has little to do with someone being actually offended, and more to do with removing another national monument with a historic context (the same as the Parthenon in Greece) in the name of "progress". Except progress is really about remaking the history of the country. Fundamental Transformation Amirite?

I mean I am sure it's pretty damned offensive for an Athiest to throw up their Dogma on Times Square during Christmas, but hey equal freedoms for each religion; even the one that believes in nothing existing. Lets just say that all religions can't express themselves in any way, shape or form.

I'll plant some Ivy to honor the Green Man. Oh wait. Ivy on the walls of Colleges is religious symbolism?! Get it down!

There is a huge difference between allowing people to practice their religion on government property and physical religious objects on government property - one is personal, the other is public.

Also, atheism isn't a religion no matter how often people say it is.


Edit: A monument put up in 2012 isn't comparable in historic context to the Parthenon.

[The Penguin]

It's an abiding faith in the denunciation of other faiths if we go by the conduct of a majority of it's members of late, and by the majority statement given on what Athiesm actually is. I would submit they are as zealous as any Christian in putting forth their "Erudite" vision of reality. In truth they are going about it as rabidly as Cardinal Ximinez and the Spanish Inquisition once did, barring torture.

Their stance seems to indicate given the number of suites filed by Athiests that they are morally repulsed by the sight of another faith, espousing an intolerance typically claimed to be characteristic of the Christian and Muslim faiths. With this in mind one must conclude that they must also from a logic driven standpoint be a faith themselves if they possess such intolerance and anger over issues. I would class them the Religion of "Anti-Religion" myself, but that's just a personal opinion.

So barring tangible proof to the counter, I feel that the acts must define the belief. Those acts taken thus far seem to classify Athiesm as a religion and faith unto itself. A faith that appears to also know that if they are labeled as such, they will lose the current unfair advantage they enjoy in litigation.

Expect a challenge to it to come in the coming years if it has not come yet. In advance, "No Endus this is not derailing." This is commenting in reply to what someone else asked me. You may dislike it, but that makes it no less valid than your comments.

Edit: A monument put up in 2012 isn't comparable in historic context to the Parthenon.

No no, don't mistake me. I agree with you. It's not comparable and it should come down. I'm just pointing out that if one line of thinking is deemed offensive, so must all if we are to make everyone conform to the lens of equality. There should in my estimates be a statute for anything over 100 years old that automatically protects it. And yes it should apply to anything that promotes Athiesm as well.

So hypothetically, lets say there was a monument stating that God is a lucid myth and humanity is the master of it's destiny? Sorry it's protected! Whether it's the TFSM or a Cult that venerates Sigmar, that's the only real way we can close such a debate instead of revisiting it every election.

My point is we could all do a lot better if we had more tolerance on all fronts. What we certainly don't want, is to come to a point where we wind up doing the same thing as ISIL does. IE: Destroy all opposing religious and historic artifacts the minute they are in power. That's closer to Nazism and Hitler.

Unfortunately, I think myself people don't want to close it. They want to use it for political purpose, and that's why time and again we argue it, unsurprisingly during a Presidential, Congressional or Senatorial debate. Mankind is so fascinating. Predictable to a fault, but fascinating in their tolerance for being able to rant much ado about nothing.