Posted on 03/21/2002 5:52:39 AM PST by CFW
'ADERHOLT ISN'T MOSES, AND CAPITOL HILL ISN'T MT. SINAI,' SAYS AMERICANS UNITED
An Alabama congressman's scheme to display the Ten Commandments in schools and other public buildings blatantly violates the U.S. Constitution, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-Ala.) today unveiled the "Ten Commandments Defense Act," a bill that would allow government posting of the Decalogue in public buildings and order the federal courts to find the religious displays constitutional.
Americans United, which has helped file multiple lawsuits challenging government-endorsed Commandments displays, said Aderholt's legislation is an assault on the First Amendment.
"Aderholt isn't Moses, and Capitol Hill isn't Mt. Sinai," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Americans don't need politicians giving us instruction about religion.
"We'd all be better off if members of Congress started following the Commandments and stopped using them for crass political purposes," Lynn added.
In addition to ignoring federal court precedent against government-endorsed religious displays, Aderholt's bill, H.R. 3895, takes the remarkable step of telling the judicial branch how to rule on future legal cases on this issue. In short, Aderholt is instructing courts to rule that state-sponsored religious displays are consistent with the First Amendment.
AU's Lynn dismissed the Alabama congressman's legal approach as bordering on ridiculous.
"Aderholt is taking a reckless and radical approach to constitutional law," said Lynn. "Congress can't tell the courts how to rule on cases. Anyone who's taken a high school civics class recognizes the principle of the 'separation of powers' between branches of government.
"Samford Law School should call Aderholt's office and ask for its diploma back," Lynn added.
Though Aderholt's view is inconsistent with the Constitution and two centuries of jurisprudence, he has been advocating this unusual approach to the law for some time.
During a July 27 interview with TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, Aderholt said the Supreme Court should not always be the final arbiter of the Constitution. He asserted, "[W]e would make the argument, the Supreme Court does not always have the final authority over the interpretation of the Constitution."
This will be Aderholt's second attempt to pass this proposal. He introduced it in 1998, but it failed to become law.
"Congress must reject this indefensible scheme," concluded AU's Lynn. "For lawmakers considering support for this bill, I've got a new commandment: Thou shalt not play politics with religion."
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom
The exact words do not appear in the Constitution, but the doctrine is certainly contained in the words of the First Amendment.
The words, "Separation of Powers," also do not appear in the Constitution. You wouldn't try to argue that the concept and doctrine of Separation of Powers isn't an integral part of the Constitution, would you?
There is no good reason for a judge to use his courtroom (and public monies) to advertise his religious beliefs.
I've been looking for that "separation of church and state" clause in the constitution for quite a while. Still haven't found it.
You haven't, isn't right below "Right to Abortion"?
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)
Two days after Jefferson's infamous letter he was sitting in church. In the House chambers. The practice of using House/Senate chambers for services continued until the Civil War.
The words "you are entitled to learn all sorts of perversion at Taxpayer expense" ain't there but kids get taught all manner of trash at taxpayers expense. You wouldn't try to argue that the government is here to help and knows best, would you?
by David Barton
* * * Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment. * * *
Lefties are truly pathetic creatures.
Uh, yeah, right.
Everybody knows it should be Jesus.
< slap> No, it should be Allah!
< slap > NO, it must be Joseph Smith!
< slap > Of course not, my friend. It should be Mahavishnu John McLaughlin
< slap > No way - it's gotta be Muhammed AllahAhkbar von JesseJackson!
< slap > NOT AT ALL SON, It's the imperial state of Alabama.
etc., etc., etc.
The big deal is ....
Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-Ala.) today unveiled the "Ten Commandments Defense Act," a bill that would allow government posting of the Decalogue in public buildings and order the federal courts to find the religious displays constitutional.
but a radical left wing group says....
Americans United, which has helped file multiple lawsuits challenging government-endorsed Commandments displays, said Aderholt's legislation is an assault on the First Amendment.
How long will we let these anti americans claim the high ground.
As for the rest of the commandments, except 1, there are laws against the behavior, stealing, perjury, murder. The act of posting the commandments clearly is government support for those particular religions and therefore unconstitutional.
You are correct ONLY IF you accept the perverted and tortured misinterpretation of the First Amendment which is currently fashionable among constitutional illiterates and anti-religious bigots.
The text of the Constitution does not support your position.
Interesting words. While I agree that members of Congress may need to start following the Ten Commandments, organizations such as Mr. Lynn's seek to hide the Ten Commandments from view in most places where Congressmen(and school children) would see them and be reminded.
I believe the proper way, however, is for money to be donated to the county, city or state to construct and place these copies of the Ten Commandments. That makes sure they are adhering to "Thall Shalt not Steal".
Please indicate the government's power to support the precepts of a particular religion over that of the other religions. Making a rule, administrative decision or a law to post precepts of a particular religion would be supporting that religion over others. Under what language or interpretation would that be legal?
I think an argument can be made that our government is itself a false god. Here is our governments version of the Ten Commandments:
Thou shalt have no other gods before the government
Thou shalt not speak critically of the government
Thou shalt not kill....anyone except unborn children
Thou shalt not steal....from the government
Thou shalt not covet the government's power and priveledges
Thou shalt not commit adultry...thats reserved for government employees can.
Well, you gtet he picture.
Please indicate the government's power to support the precepts of a particular religion over that of the other religions
The only answer that I can give you is apparently we(menaing folks today) are interpeting it wrong given that such things you call unconstitutional were put in place by the same men who wrote the Constitution. I agree with what you say, but obviously the founding fathers didn't exactly mean what we think.
If you're interested in religions which can stand on their own, put up a thread and you'll get half a dozen suggestions.
I agree with what you say, however, there is one question that stands in my way: Why did the founding fathers put them on the walls of civil government buildings and inscribe them on monuments?
I believe the better question is "Under what language or interpretation would that be illegal?"
Nevertheless, you miss my point entirely (or maybe I failed to articulate it).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The government, according to this text, is not prohibited from posting the Ten Commandments. It merely states that Congress will establish no state religion, re. the Church of England. Congress could not establish a Church of America, for instance.
If, however, the phrase "There shall be absolute and total separation of church and state at all times," were in the Constitution, you would be correct.
However there are some who need the government to support their religious beliefs who do not stop no matter who they hear it from.
You obviously just hate christianity and have no meaningful way to debate this. I already showed you that our founders put religious insriptions on monuments and inside public government buildings. They wrote the Constitution. I tend to side with the authors over modern day dufuses when it comes to "interpretations".
I tend to think our founders had a different definition of "supporting precepts of one religion over another one" than you do. I'll side with them. I aleady stated that I do not support the government stealing our money to do this. It should be voluntary contributions, and there are plenty who would contribute(although I wouldn't).
Guess the government could post the Catholic cathecism and say it's a good thing, but we really don't want everyone to be catholic, just a good idea to follow Catholic teachings.
I don't understand why this is such a sticking point?
I agree. I only support laws that punish the violation of rights, which is only the initiation of force or fraud, or the threat thereof. I do not support the government taking my money to pay for the Ten Commandments, or much of anything - its all basically theft if I have no choice.
Some government officials, like this judge, will do whatever they think is right or they believe in until someone reads or explains the law to them. At that point, most of them stop.
I agree here too.
However there are some who need the government to support their religious beliefs who do not stop no matter who they hear it from.
Sure, I know tons of people like this - they are all over FR.
Again, the posting of these on public property is not unconstitutional. IMO, taking people's money against their will to pay for it is a violation of individual rights and thus immoral. Unfortunately, our government doesn't see it that way, and until we tell them they don't make the rules anymore, they will continue to do so.
Well, my point is that posting the precepts of a particular religion is NOT tantamount to government support of that particular religion and is NOT , de facto, a way to establish that religion.
Establishing a religion means just that. As long as congress establishes no state church, implicitely, than the First Amendment has not been violated.
The text does not say "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof except on public property;" as much as some people wish it did.
LOL!!! You are a hoot! Its been explained time and time again here that the authors of the constitution placed religious "precepts" all over the place, yet you still can't grasp that THEY obviously didn't think it violated the constitution THEY wrote. Your little diatribe about "finding a religion that lets you stand on your own" shows your disdain for christianity.
Knock yourself out. The Constitution in no way prohibits you from doing so.
So, what was the Church of America before the "separation of church and state" was magically discovered in 1962?
In deed. Everywhere within the writings of the founding fathers they expressed their sever hatred for the established Church of England and how they wanted to guarantee that down the road, our government couldn't set up something similar. That is the reason for the wording of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law.....".
A resolution calling for a national day of Prayer:
RESOLVED, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, that many signal favors of almighty God, especially by affording them the opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.
US Congress, 25 Sep 1789
Now I might consider votin' for Uncle Meat his own bad self, but bein' dead has its disadvantages (although, come to think of it, maybe not for some of the other arbiters).
by David Barton
* * * Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment. * * *
I don't think it's fair to say that Jefferson's words "became the sole authorization for a national policy." Barton's website conveniently doesn't reference the text of the Everson v. Board of Education decision.
In fact, a short few paragraphs of the document indicate that, while the court borrowed Jefferson's phrase, the court consulted several sources in order to determine the meaning of the First Amendment:
The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it [p*15] was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. [n21] The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. [n22] There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the "establishment of religion" clause. The interrelation of these complementary clauses was well summarized in a statement of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, [n23] quoted with approval by this Court in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730:I realize this, in SCOTUS legalese, is more than a little opaque, but it's clear that Justice Black and his colleagues weren't at all the judicial lightweights that Barton, and some "pro-ten-commandments" people, think them to have been.The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority.
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 entertaining [p*16] 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 form 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, at 164.
See also Engel v. Vitale.
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.