Ten Commandments and the Supreme Court

[andyfox]

There shall be no law respecting the establishment of a relilgion. Doesn't that mean that the government and religion should be separated, that there should be no endorsement of any religion by the government?

[thatpfunk]

Why in the world are all of you attempting to appease ONE voice of dissent especially when he is a complete radical nut?

Any rational person...

[jaxmike]

congress. please quote accurately. congress shall pass no law. thats the key. again, if its not congress, and its not a law, then its not unconstitutional. i would say that a law AGAINST posting it WOULD be unconstitutional before i would say that posting it would be.

[HDPM]

You can't just ignore all the Supreme Court cases on point and the 14th Amendment. Which you are doing to formulate a simplistic view of what is happening. The link to the brief Andy posted should be instructive. You won't agree with the brief, but it is a good one. Easy to read and hits the big cases on the issue.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
There shall be no law respecting the establishment of a relilgion.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with your position, the way the amendment is actually phrased takes, to me, an even stronger position. Written as ". . . respecting the establishment of religion . . . ", not " . . . respecting the establishment of a religion . . ." is a big difference. The founders phrased things very precisely, and the former phrasing (actual text) seems to me to prohibit any religious support as opposed to the latter, which could be more readily interpreted as prohibiting support for a particular sect.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Which you are doing to formulate a simplistic view of what is happening.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bingo!

And just for emphasis:

[ QUOTE ]
Which you are doing to formulate a simplistic view of what is happening.

[/ QUOTE ]


This a great synopsis of why many of the initial posts, responses, polls, etc. and etc. on a wide variety of subjects in the politics forum are so slovenly or otherwise irrational.

The world is inherently a messy place for all sorts of reasons. A simplistic view has instant appeal, but rarely is it a practially approach to the complex issues that face humanity and its attempts to govern itself.

-Zeno

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
um, yes, where exactly is the term "separation of church and state" in the constitution. I understand the priciple of what is trying to be said. however, the fact is that the document does not say there shall be a separation of church and state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jefferson, who was around at the time and as evidenced in his writings, clearly felt that the intent of the first ammendment was to establish this wall of separation, even though the phrase itself is not found verbatim in the Constitution. His opinion seems to differ from yours, but I'll put my money on Jefferson.

[jaxmike]

the point on this issue is that there is no interpretation that should be going on. there should be no judicial legislation due to the CLEARLY written guidlines. fact is, there is nothing unconstitutional about posting the 10 commandments in a courthouse.

[andyfox]

The phrase "wall of separation" originates, indeed, with Jefferson, not with Hugo Black.

[jaxmike]

you are misunderstanding what Jefferson was saying back then. you are using current thoughts to try to justify something that wasnt the thought back then. his case for separation of church and state is completely different from what you are arguing against. his desire was to keep the nation free from a national religion. also to prevent the type of religious fighting that was going on in Europe at the time and prior with respect to the Catholic/Protestant problems. i believe he would be appaled at where his words have been taken if he were alive to voice his views.