What if the U.S. institutionalized the Ten Commandments?

[Clone Sergeant]

Everyone, relax the article is meant to be satirical. I though you guys would have noticed by the tone of the writing. I really should have said so when I first posted it. It isn't from a serious news site. The author of the site normally makes fun of sites like Aint it cool news and the CHUD.net. From time to time he comments on current events by writing satirical articles like the one I posted. I put it up because I thought it was funny. Here's a link to the site:

http://www.thefacer.net/index1.asp

The Facer is a little strange but he usually makes good points about the selfish, egotistical behavior of guys like Harry Knowles.

[Tosho]

No, it isn't. It is putting the Ten Commandments on school grounds. It's an historical document of interest, nothing more, nothing less.

So is Mein Kampf, if you want to put up "an historical document of Interest" in U.S. public schools whouldn't it make more sense to put up the U.S. Constitution?

[Darth Wong]

But in putting the ten commandments on schol grounds they are forming a state religion, which is a law, concerning religion, and as such, illegal

No, it isn't. It is putting the Ten Commandments on school grounds. It's an historical document of interest, nothing more, nothing less.

No, the Ten Commandments are a religious statement. They have little or no historical value, and there are far more important historical documents which could be studied. Moreover, public posting by the school in a prominent manner implies state approval.

1. Public schools are organized under local school boards. The First Amendment actually only forbids the Federal Congress from establishing such laws.

Legalistic loophole.

2. A law, is just that. Legislation passed by Congress and enacted into law by the President. A piece of paper hung on a wall somewhere is not law unless it is made into one by constitutional process.

The whole point of the article was that it would absurd to make the Ten Commandments into law, as fundies want to do.

Obviously, a broader interpetation of the First Amendment has been taken over time, which is good. But that doesn't necessarily preclude such actions, nor most likely did the original meaning.

Thomas Jefferson used the EXACT PHRASE "wall of separation between church and state" when describing and defending the ramifications of the first amendment.

The original meaning was clearly to provide for all religions to be practiced freely in the United States without the government regulating them in any fashion, or establishing one as superiour over the others, or persecuting them.

Posting the Ten Commandments prominently in a public school would be establishing one religion as superior over the others.

[Durandal]

No, I'm saying this example is. It's rather senseless to think that the evidences of religion currently in the USA are going to lead to some kind of regression into an Iranian-style Ayatollah Republic.

Most Western and Christian States were considerably more religious than the USA at one time, and now are far less - And I'm speaking in the industrial era, not pre-industrial. Even in the 19th century religion was still a considerable factor on the Continent.

The USA isn't going to go in reverse and its ludicrous for atheists to think it might. That's all I'm saying. No western country has before and I think the concern over the deeper spread of religion in this country, and its longer persistance, is really just a facet of anti-americanism.

Why don't you tell us why it's necessary that the Ten Commandments be institutionalized? People have told you why it's necessary that they not be (violation of the separation of church and state), so why don't you tell us what problems the Ten Commandments being posted in schools or government buildings will solve that makes it worth violating a basic principle the US was founded on.

The Pledge of Allegiance, references to God by the Presidence, the Ten Commandments in schools? Big Deal! I don't care; it's just tradition, not some kind of life-or-death matter. YEC is something to worry about, not those.

Appeal to tradition ... and a false tradition. You know as well as everyone else that those words were added during the McCarthy era under the context of discrimination against and demonization of atheists. So excuse me if I'm a little sensitive about them; perhaps you should tell black people that the Confederate flag flying above a state congress building is "just tradition."

I'm saying that people on this board and elsewhere seem to get worked up over absolutely nothing.

If it's "absolutely nothing," then would you mind if a bunch of Muslims managed to institutionalize the Qua'ran?

Oh, btw, here's the text of 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.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Or, in other words, that Congress is forbidden from passing legislation regarding the affairs of religious organizations, or prohibiting the free exercise of religious faith.

I don't see the part which classifies the institutionalization of one's religion as a "free exercise of religious faith."

[Patrick Degan]

Public schools are organized under local school boards. The First Amendment actually only forbids the Federal Congress from establishing such laws.

Legalistic loophole.

Not even that, since the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable on the state level as well as the federal.

The "plain text" of the First Amendment makes clear that the government doesn't get to play "pick the prayer" under any circumstances; no more than they can declare any particular church illegal.

[Falcon]

I still find it amazing how the courts and scholars of law disagree with the athiest biased interpertation of certian individuals on this board Wait...theres nothing amazing about that at all...

[Wicked Pilot]

I still find it amazing how the courts and scholars of law disagree with the athiest biased interpertation of certian individuals on this board Wait...theres nothing amazing about that at all...

That's because this nation has more fundies than rational people. How else do you think Helms, Byrd, Thurman, Lott, etc, got elected to public office?

[SeebianWurm]

Fundies!

[Joe]

I still find it amazing how the courts and scholars of law disagree with the athiest biased interpertation of certian individuals on this board Wait...theres nothing amazing about that at all...

Actually, courts of law do agree with them, like it or not. And I'm totally with you on some of these issues. But that doesn't change what the courts believe.

[neoolong]

Public schools are organized under local school boards. The First Amendment actually only forbids the Federal Congress from establishing such laws.

Legalistic loophole.

Not even that, since the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable on the state level as well as the federal.

The "plain text" of the First Amendment makes clear that the government doesn't get to play "pick the prayer" under any circumstances; no more than they can declare any particular church illegal.

The Supreme Court in the I think Brown v. Board of Education has determined that it applies for local as well.

[Joe]

Legalistic loophole.

Not even that, since the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable on the state level as well as the federal.

The "plain text" of the First Amendment makes clear that the government doesn't get to play "pick the prayer" under any circumstances; no more than they can declare any particular church illegal.

The Supreme Court in the I think Brown v. Board of Education has determined that it applies for local as well.

No, Brown forced public schools to desegregate.

[Joe]

During the first few years after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, it was given a narrow interpretation by the courts. It wasn't until the early twentieth century that it was broadened through a series of court cases that gradually applied the Bill of Rights to the states. There are probably too many cases to list here...

Also, 1000 posts. Yippee.

[neoolong]

Not even that, since the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable on the state level as well as the federal.

The "plain text" of the First Amendment makes clear that the government doesn't get to play "pick the prayer" under any circumstances; no more than they can declare any particular church illegal.

The Supreme Court in the I think Brown v. Board of Education has determined that it applies for local as well.

No, Brown forced public schools to desegregate.

Oops. I meant Everson v. Board of Education.

[Exonerate]

I would move to Australia or some other country with a good climate. Good thing the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Seperation of Church and State.

[Arrow]

The framers of the Constitution SPECIFICALLY stated that the church and state are to be seperate (for damn good reasons!). The only reason the whole religion in public places became an issue is because the Cold War gave prescent for it; i.e. the U.S. government wanted to make a moral statement against the atheist commies and added "under God" to the pledge and other oaths. Furthermore, now that there is much religious diversity in this country than ever before, and the followers of these religions don't like having a viewpoint shoved down there thoat, this has become a huge issue (and over a bunch of shit!).

Jefferson, Washington and Franklin must be rolling in their graves! Religion is the worst thing to happen to mankind, and the framers knew it (which may explain their belief in Divine Providence instead of Christianity).

[kojikun]

Just to throwback to page one..

and to totally annihilate the animal influence on how we function - IE, emotions - Would be to make for a very depressing existance.

Funny how you say lacking emotions would be depressing, since depression is an emotion ::chortle::

[Joe]

The framers of the Constitution SPECIFICALLY stated that the church and state are to be seperate (for damn good reasons!). The only reason the whole religion in public places became an issue is because the Cold War gave prescent for it; i.e. the U.S. government wanted to make a moral statement against the atheist commies and added "under God" to the pledge and other oaths. Furthermore, now that there is much religious diversity in this country than ever before, and the followers of these religions don't like having a viewpoint shoved down there thoat, this has become a huge issue (and over a bunch of shit!).

Jefferson, Washington and Franklin must be rolling in their graves! Religion is the worst thing to happen to mankind, and the framers knew it (which may explain their belief in Divine Providence instead of Christianity).

While it is true that the Founders clearly meant for church and state to be separate throughout the nation, in all states, they certaintly would never have wanted the federal government to be the vehicle by which to achieve this separation, Jefferson especially. On Jefferson's tombstone, his three proudest accomplishments are listed; one of them is his responsibility for Virginia's separation of church and state. This is the kind of separation Jefferson desired, voluntarily adopted by state governments.

[Arrow]

Well there are many things the founders never wanted the federal government to be. A world power is one of them (as stated by Washington). They probably would had frowned on the civil war as well. Still, they knew the dangers and the states accepted the seperation when they radified the Constitution.

[Falcon]

I still find it amazing how the courts and scholars of law disagree with the athiest biased interpertation of certian individuals on this board Wait...theres nothing amazing about that at all...

That's because this nation has more fundies than rational people. How else do you think Helms, Byrd, Thurman, Lott, etc, got elected to public office?

Byrd aka Mr. KKK? He's not someone I'd hold up as a shining example of religion. None of those men except maybe Helms are, and I'm not sure about him...

[Falcon]

Well there are many things the founders never wanted the federal government to be. A world power is one of them (as stated by Washington). They probably would had frowned on the civil war as well. Still, they knew the dangers and the states accepted the seperation when they radified the Constitution.

The founders wouldn't have wanted a federally funded public school, a social welfare system, a standing army, an income tax, or hardly any of the other things that the fedeeral government currently does.

[Joe]

Well there are many things the founders never wanted the federal government to be. A world power is one of them (as stated by Washington). They probably would had frowned on the civil war as well. Still, they knew the dangers and the states accepted the seperation when they radified the Constitution.

Well, I'd like to say that the states voluntarily all adopted the separation of church and state, but they didn't; many states had well-established state religions that lasted well through the 19th century.

[The Dark]

IIRC, Jefferson mentions the separation of church and state in letters explaining it to church leaders where it's to defend the church. While it prevents the church from altering the government, it also prevents the government from declaring a national religion and outlawing all others. Jefferson was worried about either of these happening, and thus all religions have an equal right to representation within the school system. Given the current rulings (as far as I can recall), this means student-led worship is permitted and must be permitted, as long as it does not disrupt class, is not forced on unwilling students, and all religions are given equal opportunity to worship as they desire. Whether or not an actual religious group forms within the school is up to the students. As to the original idea of posting the Ten Commandments, from a Christian point of view, that's ridiculous. It would suggest the TC are merely a historical document on the equal of the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, rather than the Law of God. Before anyone starts flaming, notice I said "from a Christian point of view." I'm sure you disagree, and that's good. Problems don't get resolved without at least two viewpoints.

[Patrick Degan]

During the first few years after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, it was given a narrow interpretation by the courts. It wasn't until the early twentieth century that it was broadened through a series of court cases that gradually applied the Bill of Rights to the states. There are probably too many cases to list here...

Then the courts were interpreting it wrong up to that point. The text of Section 1, paragraph 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment is quite plain:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is no legitimate argument around "No state shall make or enforce any law", except if the court is simply determined to ignore it altogether, as was done in Plessy v. Ferguson. This is what the Warren court rectified.

Hmm... hit the 1000 post mark myself, I see.

[Joe]

Curious then, that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not see their error in their interpretation of their own law.

[Patrick Degan]

Curious then, that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not see their error in their interpretation of their own law.

Ah, so negligence is a mitigating factor in the gross misinterpretation of a constitutional amendment? That is, I must say, a rather unique piece of reasoning.