Posted on 12/08/2004 5:08:56 PM PST by nypokerface
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to allow Ten Commandments displays on government property, adding a federal view on a major church-state case that justices will deal with early next year.
The government has weighed in before in religion cases at the high court, including one earlier this year that challenged the words "under God" in the classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The government supported a California school district in that case. Now, it is backing two Kentucky counties that had framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued McCreary and Pulaski counties, claiming the displays were an unconstitutional promotion of religion. The group won.
Justices will hear arguments, probably in February, in the counties' appeal and in a second case involving a Texas homeless man who wants a 6-foot granite monument removed from the state Capitol grounds.
The administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, Paul Clement, told justices in Wednesday's filing that Ten Commandments displays are common around the nation — and in the court's own building, the Capitol and national monuments.
"Reproductions and representations of the Ten Commandments have been commonly employed across the country to symbolize both the rule of law itself, as well as the role of religion in the development of American law," Clement wrote.
Clement said the displays are important in educating people "about the nation's history and celebrating its heritage."
The Supreme Court banned the posting of Ten Commandments in public schools in 1980.
Clement argued that courthouses are different from schools and often have "historic symbols of law."
Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor and former legal counsel to President Reagan and the first President Bush, said that the government had been expected to file arguments in the case. "It would have been politically untenable and legally timid if the government's chief court litigator had not done so," he said.
The case is McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.
When the First Amendment was debated in Congress,1789 a
certain my Sylvster worried the amendment "might be thought
to abolish religion altogether."Mr.Huntington said the words "might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely
hurtful to the cause of religion.. .. He hoped therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the
rights of conscience, and the free exercise of rleigion,but not to patronize those who profess no religion at all."
An atheist is just someone too lazy-- or to bitter --blaming God-or anything but himself fo rhis own shortcomings/The tyranny of the minority is not what our
Constitution was drafted to secure.
And insert their "key beliefs" alongside "In God We Trust" on our coinage?? And alongside "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?? Or perhaps just remove "In God We Trust"??
This nation was founded as a nation under God. And it is going to remain that way.
There is no church of The United States of America.
We have seperated church and state. The ACLU want to do away with God. Period. They have lit on the seperation of church and state for one reason and one reason only. They want a secular country.
How so? What religion is established? What is the criminal sanction for violating one of the commandments you find less than universal?
Are images of the Code of Hammurabi likewise establishing religion?
Um... you are aware that Hammurabi was king of Babylon from 1728-1686 BC, not a religious figure, right?
I don't think so. You need to read my posts more. :)
Thanks. This is why I love FR. Most of the posters here are intelligent, logical, and conservative.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Looks as though we'll be hearing more about eradication versus preservation of the 10 Commandments in the near future.
Just for the record, I think they should be allowed in schools as well. Does anyone really think that it would harm children and high school students to read things like "Thou shalt not steal?"
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
P.S. I am no scholar (I know some of you are gasping in shock at this admission) and so all the little teensy details of constitutional this and that are all above my head. Some if you may remember the long and contentious threads about Judge Moore and his granite monument that got removed. I weighed in on some of those threads.
"No man is a good citizen unless he so acts as to show that he
actually uses the Ten Commandments, and translates the Golden
Rule into his life conduct." --Theodore Roosevelt
"If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments." --G. K. Chesterton
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." Noah Webster, compiler of the American Dictionary of the English Language in 1828.
Um... you have never read the preamble to the Code, right?
Since I can't say it any better - DITTO to what you said.
What law did Congress make in regard to this "establishment"?
Where did I say there has to be an absence of religion? I'm quite supportive of retaining "under God" in public usage of the pledge of allegiance, since with it's lack of specificity, it isn't likely to offend any reasonable person. But highly specific religious texts and pronouncements, especially those that explicitly denigrate or declare superiority over differing belief systems, make reasonable people uncomfortable, when they are promulgated in public institutions -- particularly in courts, where people may reasonably feel that they are not getting impartial treatment if their professed belief system differs from the one publicly promoted at the courthouse.
My understanding of the seperation of church and state was so that churches (the Catholic Church, in particular) was not allowed the levity in politics to start making laws...not so that we could get God out of every aspect of our government.
The Ten Commandments are a symbol of religion, not just history, and anyone wanting to display should have that right. Whether it be for historical reasons or religious ones.
There are criminal sanctions on the books in many states, and in the military, for adultery, based on this religious injunction. Many people's belief systems accommodate and even encourage "open" marriage. I know several happily married couples who fall into this category, including a career naval officer who is married to a college friend of mine. Despite the fact that neither one of them has ever wanted their marriage to conform to the biblical standard on adultery, they are subject to a legal system which threatens to penalize them (especially him, as a military officer) for living according to their own beliefs.
The White House has finally jumped in. The tide must be moving strongly now.
Get over it, Christians built this country with blood sweat and tears and we are still the supermajority of this population. If that offends you so much, MOVE.
ACLU, try removing these religious symbols...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.