Roy Moore announces candidacy in Alabama gubernatorial race

"The purpose was to respect an establishment of religion."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You always leave out that first part that specifically states, "the CONGRESS shall make no LAW......"

 

"Vermont is rich in marble deposits, some of the best in the world next to India marble, I might add. [/QB][/"


Nice one, on that note, I'll call it a night. Good night, Jonv, wherever you are.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment extends the limitations of the First Amendment, as wll as any consditutionally guaranteed freedom of an individual, to actions by the state and local governments.

For example, individuals cannot have their first amendment freedom of speech or press curtailed by state or local governments.

Time for me to say g'night. I'm off to the gym to watch the Angels/White Sox payoff game... and work out, of course!!!

 

There is no right to not be exposed to such a display, so no exteension is there. Also, If you are going to extend it with the 14th ammendment, then it would mean that the state legislatures could not pass a law counter to the establishment clause. It still would have nothing to say about a display like Moores, unless one wanted to make it say that by judicial decree. And that is the point.

 

Johnv,

Also of note is that taxpayers paid for that monument at Moore's authorization

That's not correct, is it? I believe that D. James Kennedy's contributors paid for it.

it's a recognition of a specific religious establishment: KJV protestantism. The display expressly excludes Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, all of whom recognize the Ten Commandments, but not in the order or division displayed on the monument.

I think that strict separationists overstate the significance of the "KJV Ten Commandments". I think most on the accommodationist side don't care which version is posted. I've heard Moore state that himself. Posting of any one of them would be, almost by definition, however, an "exclusion" of the others. Making a choice of a particular version of a set of commandments is hardly an establishment.

You've still yet to address another, valid interpretation of the "respecting" term in the First Amendment, which I noted earlier. That view, advanced by Akhil Reed Amar, is that that word prohibited Congress from passing anything regarding a true establishment of religion at any level, which kept them from both establishing a national church and from regulating or limiting the various state establishments which existed. The history of the debate supports that interpretation, and the early history of the First Amendment, BTW, supports that interpretation.

Well, whether you think it's okay for the government respect or endorse a religion or not, the fact is that Amendment I makes it expressly illegal.

John, again you have overstated. The First Amendment expressly does no such thing. The language does not say Congress may not "respect...a religion", but that Congress shall not "make a law respecting an establishment of religion". The key word remains "establishment", not "respecting". Early American legislative history in no way supports that religion may not be endorsed. Prohibiting it is in fact an endorsement of the secularization of the public square.

If this was an issue over the Five Pillars of Islam, or the Four Noble Truths, and a judge saying that those displays should be allowed because he felt it necessary to acknowleg God through their diaplay, my arguements would be the same. I don't want the government respecting the establishment of those religions either.

Whether it is the Five Pillars or the Ten Commandments, a monument does not constitute an establishment. Are you familiar with the elements of establishment that the Founders and their English predecessors had faced? They knew what an establishment was.

Incorrect. In fact, SCOTUS refused to hear the Moore case, leaving it in the hands of the lower federal courts to hear.

I think you're missing Bunyon's point (though he can certainly clarify), but I think it was that Moore protests the misuse of SCOTUS's power in general in dealing with EC cases.


Bunyon,

Also, If you are going to extend it with the 14th ammendment, then it would mean that the state legislatures could not pass a law counter to the establishment clause.

Unfortunately, that is what the Court did with Everson v. Board of Education which "found" Jefferson's wall of separation.

 

Congress shall not...Congress shall not...Congress shall not.........
That is the essence of the establishment clause. Congress can't pass laws making any religion a religion of the state.(nation)

All the rest of this debate is left wing God hating prattle.

 

"Unfortunately, that is what the Court did with Everson v. Board of Education which "found" Jefferson's wall of separation"-------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand that. I am saying it is bad precedent and should be overtruned. They use the 14th amenement in a way it is not ment to be used, just as the used the 4th amendment in a alian way to justify Row v wade. In my view if the 14th amendment were used properly it would only prohibit the legislatures from doing what the Establishment clause is meant to inhibit the congress from doing.

 

Which is a very good reason to have NO religious displays on public property. If you allow one, you should allow them all. Best to leave such displays to churchyards and private venues.

Moore's mantra of "acknowledging God" is a spurious claim. Is a marble monument in the public courthouse the only way he feels he can do this?

 

The test of the constitution is not harm, but establishment.

WOW! Our baptist forefathers are rolling in their graves. Just how can there be endorsement without coercion on some level? You sure are putting a lot of trust and faith in the ability of mankind to restrain themselves.

Which is the very reason that the government shouldn't endorse or respect any religion, because mankind is incapable of restraining themselves.

 

G2C,

The test of the constitution is not harm, but establishment.

You're the one who raised the question of harm.

You shouldn't raise the question if you don't want it answered. You're welcome to rephrase the question.

Just how can there be endorsement without coercion on some level?

There is nothing in the word "endorse" that implies any level of coercion. If it is that clear to you, please explain just how endorsement does include coercion. To borrow a phrase from Jefferson, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" for government to endorse religion. Perhaps you'd care to address the four points I raised in the first post on page seven in this thread.

I'll say it again: the Founders and their predecessors in England lived with an established religion that included several components of coercion. That was an established religion.

[ October 12, 2005, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

I was just asking if you only wanted Christianity endorsed or was it ok to endorse any religion? You said it didn't bother you to have government endorse religion. It would bother me ... ALOT!


So you are going to put your faith in the ability of mankind to control itself and act fairly and justly toward the minority? History doesn't allow me to express your same level of faith.

 

"If you allow one, you should allow them all. Best to leave such displays to churchyards and private venues."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnetic poles, there is some wisdom in that statment. And I have thought that way on many occasions. But the question here is not what possible benefits there may be from a mis-application of the constitution, but rather, is the current case law dealing with this issue constitutinal? I don't think it is, which means we have an out of control dictatoral court leaving the constiution behind and enforcing Ideology instead. But I do see your point, good one.

 

Why do you folks assume we should be threatened by a the govenment endorsing our Christian heritage. Even today, 80 percent of folks claim to be BA Christians. You seem to think that it is equally troublesome for the Gov to endorse Christianity as it would be for them to endorse Islam. But if Christ is who he said he was and the religion he founded is what he says it is, than it is no threat, as it is.

You act as if this is a completely secular state that never endorsed Christianity and now it needs to be stopped before it does so. But it has always done it, so why stop it now? But it has never endorsed the establishment of any religion, and it does not seek to do so now, so why all the big fuss?

 

"So you are going to put your faith in the ability of mankind to control itself and act fairly and justly toward the minority?"-----------------------------------------------------------

It is precisely our govenment's embrace of Judeo/Christian values that has allowed us to achieve the freedom we have now and has allowed us to become the safest place on earth for the true minority. Without Christ and his influance, we have no such democarcy, we have not such feedom. It is Christ who set us apart; it is Christ who made us different. He is no threat. And it is ok for our government to give credit where credit is due. Giving credit does not coerce anyone.

 

The issue is not recogising religious heritage. No one has a problem with that. The issue is endorsing a religious establishment. Doing so is a constitutional violation, whether it's a form of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism, or any other religion.

That's grossly false. It's likely that 80% of Americans identify themselves with a Christian religion. That's by no means akin to saying 80% of Americans are born again. I would doubt very highly if 60% were born again, but only God knows. Anyhoo, that's a different topic. It doesn't matter if 100% or 10% of Americans are born again. It would not change the fact that government respecting of the establishment of religion is constitutionally forbidden.

You would have a problem if the government endorsed Islam. On what legal grounds would you have a problem with that?

Scripture never requires believers to endorse Christ in their government. It does, however, call upon believers to put Christ in their hearts.

We are not a secular people, but it is a completely secular government.

It is SCOTUS and the lower courts that decide if a particular act respects the establishment of religion. If an act is found to, then that act must cease.

 

"On what legal grounds would you have a problem with that?"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would not have any legal grounds. If a Muslim Judge merely placed a islamic sign in his court, it would be up to his electors to voice any opposistion. Legally, I don't see how the mere presence of a islamic monument would be a problem. Especially if he happened to be in a commnity that was majority islamic. But I fail to see how he can really enshrine islam using our founding documents- GOT YA!

"That's grossly false. It's likely that 80% of Americans identify themselves with a Christian religion"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johnv, Notice my consicuous use of the word "claim" in the sentence you are reacting to.

"We are not a secular people, but it is a completely secular government."-------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the state charters and their overtly Christian lanquage and then tell me if these folks really set up a completely secular government to rule over them. Reading the lanquage in our founding documents and the language of our founders would prevent any one from thinking our govenment was/is COMPLETELY secular. Where was it I last saw that phrase "In God we Trust"? I can't remember, but somehow I am sure I'll see it again real soon.

"It is SCOTUS and the lower courts that decide if a particular act respects the establishment of religion. If an act is found to, then that act must cease. "---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the day ever came when SCOTUS ruled that it is ok to lock up all naturalized citizens, I am sure you will agree with that supremely authoritative ruling also. Point is, thay can be WRONG and have been on many occasions.

 

go2church,

So you are going to put your faith in the ability of mankind to control itself and act fairly and justly toward the minority? History doesn't allow me to express your same level of faith.

Again, please read the four points I noted earlier. I think they answer that point.


Bunyon,

You act as if this is a completely secular state that never endorsed Christianity and now it needs to be stopped before it does so. But it has always done it, so why stop it now?

It's an excellent point that I think also answers G2C's concern: we've had endorsement without coercion for a long, long time. How does it suddenly become coercive?


Johnv,

The issue is endorsing a religious establishment.

Which goes back to what I said earlier. What we have is not a religious establishment. So if someone endorses something that is not there, what's the problem? If you are saying that endorsement is an establishment of religion, that's a much different assertion. Again, the First Amendment doesn't prohibit endorsing an establishment of religion, it prohibits establishing a religion.

It is SCOTUS and the lower courts that decide if a particular act respects the establishment of religion. If an act is found to, then that act must cease.

Their saying it doesn't make it so, doesn't make something in fact an establishment of religion. Legally, yes, but not in fact. The issue certainly remains debatable in such fora as this. Unless you are prepared to argue that Plessy v. Ferguson was Constitutionally correct in asserting that "separate but equal" was not a violation of equal protection simply because the Court said so. No, I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of the judicial review.

 

Round and round we go...
You want government endorsement and I don't want the government in a lot of things, especially religion!

Fired-judge Moore is a loon who would gladly exchange our religious freedom for HIS brand of religion, you seem to be OK with that, I am not. I hope he loses and loses big!

 

G2C,

I take it, then, you're satisfied not to answer how endorsement is in any way coercion? BTW, I hope Moore loses big, too.

 

Well,FTR, I think you are being a little hard on the man. But this is what I think you should do. Quite the insurance biz, and the Navy Reserves. Sell all you have and go to regent and get your law degree and become Jay Sekulos right hand man. You are a Jay Sekulo in waiting I can tell. And you have to specialize in Constitutional law. The world needs you!