Author Topic: US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments  (Read 4792 times)

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« on: June 28, 2005, 10:38:12 AM »
The thread on THR was rather interesting and I wouldn't mind seeing it continue here.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

P95Carry

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 437
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2005, 11:34:46 AM »
Chris - I am not a religious man per se but - am appalled by what has gone on with this crap.  I have ZERO problem with seeing the commandments - anywhere at all - the whole nation was after all built on christianity for the most part and that heritage should endure, even if not hopefully rammed down folk's throats - that is not helpful IMO.  These commandments are too - a pretty basis on which folks should base their morals and way of life - irrespective of their origin.

Folks should choose and if a tablet showing commandments is in some place or other - no one has to give it more than a cursory glance and move on, if it is not to their taste.  I suffer no offence if I see such.  I could equally deal with some other religious writing being displayed - I do not HAVE to stop and read if I do not so wish.  Where is the problem?

There is way too much PC crap these days based on the ''lest we offend'' principle- and it has gotten outa hand.  It is gradually stifling the freedoms and liberty of the land that has proclaimed itself as the freest there is.
Chris - P95
Guns don't kill people - people kill people.
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
Rohrbaugh interest/ownership? - Rohrbaugh Forum Rohrbaugh R9 FAQ Site

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2005, 11:45:54 AM »
Quote
"Almighty God, our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization and to set free a suffering humanity."  

That was Franklin Delano...who here thinks he was talking about Islam or Wicca? Or some sort of libertarian ideal...what overt willful ignorance.
And FDR helped gut the Constitution and was the driving force behind NFA.   On the civil rights front, not the best president to quote when it comes to Constitutional issues.   Unless discussing tactics of how to gut it and turn the country into a socialist paradise.


Quote
Rebar is exactly right. We are, and have been, committing cultural suicide. That is the root of the problem. And CC, I'm trying to understand (honestly) what your particular objection to the 10 commandments is. Do you object to their display because you think God actually handed them to Moses (as law for the Jews), or because some religious people claim them as tenets? Do you object to a public profession of faith? Do you fear that others faith will be imposed on you by force? Please explain how you are threatened by the display of something as benign as the 10 commandments in a public place.
People have thought that the US has been committing cultural suicide since before the US was even a country.   The Irish hordes, et al.

My particular objection is not to the 10 commandments.   My particular objection is that the government is specifically tasked with not picking sides when it comes to religion.   You seem to be missing this point.   I don't mind public profession of faith, I mind the government showing preference in faith.   Display the 10 commandments all you want.  So long as any other religious doctrine can be displayed next to them.   Is that too much to ask?



Quote
Folks should choose and if a tablet showing commandments is in some place or other - no one has to give it more than a cursory glance and move on, if it is not to their taste.  I suffer no offence if I see such.  I could equally deal with some other religious writing being displayed - I do not HAVE to stop and read if I do not so wish.  Where is the problem?
Chris, you know me better than that.   The issue is government preference.  Let me turn this around on you.   Why shouldn't Wiccans be allowed to put their Rede next to the 10 Commandments?  Or any other religions do the same.   Gimme a solid excuse.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

P95Carry

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 437
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2005, 12:11:48 PM »
Indeed yes - gov' preference.  I have no problem either with Wiccan's being able to show some text or other - I am not trying to say that 10 commandments is too exclusion of all else!  As I said above ... it matters not to me what is ''on display'' - because I have the FREEDOM of choice as to whether I stop look and read, or not.  I was perhaps not clear with what I said earlier.  I don't think I need to give an excuse!

But I base part of my disgust at the court's rulings on what is all but tantamount to more (yet more) bending the constitution and also getting close to denying the heritage aspect.

I am very much ''live and let live'' - let all faiths display their ''wares'' - as long as it is done so that none are thrust at us to excess.  But let us not lose the origins only to replace with all other - as has seemed to be a trend in some places.  OUT with commandments - but in with something else, as per some Islamic thing somewhere - which I forget right now.  All or nothing will suit me. Smiley
Chris - P95
Guns don't kill people - people kill people.
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
Rohrbaugh interest/ownership? - Rohrbaugh Forum Rohrbaugh R9 FAQ Site

InfidelSerf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 884
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2005, 12:19:02 PM »
I call for the removal of all polytheistic symbols from all courthouses and government properties.

Take down the statue of Themis/Justicia in front of the SCOTUS building.
Remove the marbel figures of Moses, Confucius and Solon!

Replace them all with marble figures of Land, Air, and Water.  For we are a nation of naturalists and postmodernism!!
We are the culturaly creative ones.
Demand moral relativism as the law of the land.!!!
 
rolleyes

At least they might get a taste of their own medicine
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
The hour is fast approaching,on which the Honor&Success of this army,and the safety of our bleeding Country depend.Remember~Soldiers,that you are Freemen,fighting for the blessings of Liberty-that slavery will be your portion,and that of your posterity,if you do not acquit yourselves like men.GW8/76

telewinz

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 285
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2005, 01:46:27 PM »
I want equal balance, Christians in their humbleness thing they own our "good" values?  Having lived over seas, I can testify that our moral values our "shared" by a large part of the World.  The "Old" testament has little in common with "good" (it IS part of the Bible you know) and those that practice otherwise end up dead or in an institution.  Christians often need to force their beliefs on others just to pat each other on the back "I'm great and so are you".  You know the saying about those who don't study history.
Career Corrections

P95Carry

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 437
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2005, 01:50:40 PM »
FWIW - a letter from Rev Louis Sheldon seen today -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Supreme Court Appears To
Suffer From ?Church/Separation Anxiety?

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

For Publication On Or After
June 28, 2005

Washington, DC ?  The U.S. Supreme Court?s two conflicted decisions on the public display of the Ten Commandments on June 27, shows the obvious strain of a new malady I call ?church/separation anxiety.?

The symptoms of this malady include: Confusion over the actual history of our nation and its Judeo-Christian roots; a belief in the superiority of one?s own thoughts over the original intent of the Founding Fathers in writing the First Amendment; and an ability to issue edicts that have no relationship to logic, history, or the Constitution.  

This church/separation anxiety was clearly in operation in the Kentucky and Texas Ten Commandment cases. In the Kentucky case, the 5-4 Court said that court houses can?t display a framed copy of the Ten Commandments, yet a Ten Commandments monument on display on the Capitol grounds in Texas is legal.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears to be one of the few justices who has an immunity to this malady. In his dissent in the Kentucky case, Justice Scalia made many profound statements on the dangers of his associates issuing edicts that are unconnected to reality.

Justice Scalia correctly observed: ?What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that?thumbs up or thumbs down?as their personal preferences dictate. Today?s opinion forthrightly (or actually, somewhat less than forthrightly), admits that it does not rest upon consistently applied principle.?

Justice Scalia rightly points out that the ?Nothing stands behind the Court?s assertion that governmental affirmation of the society?s belief in God is unconstitutional except the Court?s own say-so, citing as support only the unsubstantiated say-so of earlier Courts going back no farther than the mid-20th century.?

For those who suffer from church/state history deprivation, the key case that set in motion our nation?s downhill slide into secularism was Everson v. Board of Ed. Of Ewing in 1947, when the Court quoted Thomas Jefferson as declaring that there must be a high and impregnable wall of church/state separation in our nation. From this decision has sprung the ACLU juggernaut against all public displays of religion in America?and bad decisions upon worse decisions that have been built upon Everson?s faulty interpretation of Jefferson?s words.

Justice Scalia?s dissent is a valuable history lesson into the corruption of the judicial system and shows clearly that the Founding Fathers had no intention of erasing religion from the public square. In fact, the Founding Fathers believed that public education should be used to spread religious principles as the surest way of developing civilized citizens in the new Republic.

It is my prayer that when vacancies occur on the Supreme Court, the President and the U.S. Senate will have the wisdom to make certain no nominee suffers from church/separation anxiety?and that they have the same respect for the Constitution that Justice Scalia does. We must not help spread church/separation anxiety by placing more infected jurists on the Court.
Chris - P95
Guns don't kill people - people kill people.
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
Rohrbaugh interest/ownership? - Rohrbaugh Forum Rohrbaugh R9 FAQ Site

telewinz

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 285
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2005, 02:33:08 PM »
I have less trust of our "religious" leaders than I do of our government.  The largest growing religious movement in this country?  It ain't christianity.  The largest religious population in our prisons? christian.  The largest religious group with one parent homes? christian.   The largest religious group with the highest divorce rate? christian.  And they have the gall to post their commandments as if those values are unavailable otherwise!  What major religion teaches stealing, adultery, lying and murder?  None come to mind.  I suggest that the values ADOPTED by christians would easily survive the christian faith itself.  Born catholic, raised lutheran,  I've not seen anything "special" about christians to cause them to beat their chests and blow their own horns.  I suspect its nothing more than a smoke screen to keep that money flowing in and to gain political glout.  Jim Baker where are you when they need you?
Career Corrections

Glock Glockler

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2005, 04:48:05 PM »
Display the 10 commandments all you want.  So long as any other religious doctrine can be displayed next to them.   Is that too much to ask?...Why shouldn't Wiccans be allowed to put their Rede next to the 10 Commandments?  Or any other religions do the same.   Gimme a solid excuse

'To a hammer, the world is a nail'.

Why are you looking at this issue only through the looking glass of religion?  As I said on THR, the 10 comandments are basically rules for playing nice in the sandbox with others, and court is where people end up when they don't play nice.  The comandments are also part of America's cultural legacy.  Why the huge issue with having it in a court or govt property?  I don't ever remember anyone proposing a Constitutional amendment saying that the Wiccan rede is never allowed to be displayed, if you think it's good and should be displayed then petition for it and if you're discriminated against on religous grounds then we have something substantive, but until that point you're just crying because you perceive one side has an up on you.  

Would you be ok with a quote from Shakespeare or Star Wars, but not another quote from a book of Western civilization because it has a religous affiliation?  Why not just try to get good quotes in court instead of trying to ban some because some believe it's holy.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2005, 07:54:12 PM »
Quote from: P95Carry
I am very much ''live and let live'' - let all faiths display their ''wares'' - as long as it is done so that none are thrust at us to excess.  But let us not lose the origins only to replace with all other - as has seemed to be a trend in some places.  OUT with commandments - but in with something else, as per some Islamic thing somewhere - which I forget right now.  All or nothing will suit me. Smiley
Thank you for arguing my position, Chris.  Wink

All or nothing suits me and the Constitution.


Quote
Why are you looking at this issue only through the looking glass of religion?  As I said on THR, the 10 comandments are basically rules for playing nice in the sandbox with others, and court is where people end up when they don't play nice.  The comandments are also part of America's cultural legacy.  Why the huge issue with having it in a court or govt property?  I don't ever remember anyone proposing a Constitutional amendment saying that the Wiccan rede is never allowed to be displayed, if you think it's good and should be displayed then petition for it and if you're discriminated against on religous grounds then we have something substantive, but until that point you're just crying because you perceive one side has an up on you.
I'm not Wiccan, I just use them as an example.  Just an FYI.  But there are Wiccans that do occassionally try to petition.  I'm not involved in any of those movements, so my knowledge is limited in that area.

As for 'crying', na.  Not my style.  When someone tried to rip my religious symbol off my neck, I gave that person a beating.  When a group of religious wackos tried to kill me for my beliefs, I brought the war to them.   When a Congresscritter attempted to ban my expression of spirituality, I made it clear to my chain of command that I'd resign regardless of consequences.   When I was charged with the crime of 'witchcraft' by a portion of my chain of command, I brought the matter to my supervisor to fix with the understanding that otherwise I'd fix it.  When I was faced with those circumstances, I did what I could.  

Crying was not one of them, except the time I was sliced with a surrated knife.  A friend cleaned out the open wound with alcohol and then sutured the wound, without a local, did make me cry more than a little.   There are limits to my machoness, and that was one of them.   I was doing good until she started pouring the alcohol.  

Some of the 10 commandments I see as good rules to live by.  The 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th.  The rest I see as unreasonable standards of conduct, and should have no basis in the law.



Quote
Would you be ok with a quote from Shakespeare or Star Wars, but not another quote from a book of Western civilization because it has a religous affiliation?  Why not just try to get good quotes in court instead of trying to ban some because some believe it's holy.
If a quote from Star Wars was engraved in marble in front of a courthouse and no other words were allowed, I'd find this rather strange but not illegal as far as the Constitution go.   Well, depending on how any petitions for additional quotes were handled.  (redress of grievances, I suppose.)

That'd be a question for a Constitutional scholar and/or lawyer because it's not a very clear cut question.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,009
  • I Am Inimical
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2005, 08:43:32 PM »
If this is the worst we have to worry about as a nation, we must be pretty damned well off.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Strings

  • Guest
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2005, 10:50:30 PM »
Hmmm... and from a Wiccan perspective...

 I have no problem with the Commandments being displayed somewhere in a courthouse. Of course, I think it would be good to also display the Magna Charta, Constitution, and some form of Hamurabi's code. These are all things that Western law is based on, and would be appropriate in a courthouse.

 As for a display of the Commandments violating the First Amendment, I seem to recall it being "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Displaying the Ten Commandments isn't (to my mind) "establishing" anything: all of Christianity and Judaism are supposed to follow those rules. And it's CERTAINLY not "prohibiting free exercise thereof"...

InfidelSerf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 884
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2005, 04:14:53 AM »
Well said Hunter.

I think the point most are trying to make is that Judeo-Christian values are from a historical perspective completely relevant.
Just as some of the great philosopher's are historically significant in the founding of this nation.
Islam, Wicca, and Naturalism were not part of the primary value systems drawn upon during the inception of this great nation.

The display of the 10 commandments is not about religion. It's about history.
And frankly many of us are sick of seeing our history rewritten to appease the unappeasable.

How displaying a piece of history somehow ends up translating into congress making laws establishing a religion are beyond me.
By taking them down, all I see is it violating the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.

Which I see an unelected court prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Just as taxation without representation is taking place thanks to out of control judges through out the nation.

JMHO
The hour is fast approaching,on which the Honor&Success of this army,and the safety of our bleeding Country depend.Remember~Soldiers,that you are Freemen,fighting for the blessings of Liberty-that slavery will be your portion,and that of your posterity,if you do not acquit yourselves like men.GW8/76

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2005, 05:30:46 AM »
I'm pulling this over from THR & pasting here (with a few mods), as no one addressed the most fundamental question.


What Does the US Constitution Say About It?

Quote
Amendment I
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.
Quote
Article VI, Paragraph Three
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Quote
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
For folks who claim to read, know, and respect the US Constitution as written, I see an awful lot of horse manure being thrown about. Also, the ignorance of the history and circumstances of the time is impressive and Brady-esque.

See, the pertinent part of Amendment I is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This says nothing about a "wall of separation," neutrality, irreligion, hostility to religion, mandatory endorsement of religion, or an even hand with regard to religions. It simply states that Congress will not pass a law making any religion the national religion (as they had in many european countries at the time) and that the US Congress can't tell you what to worship. Also (from Article VI), you don't have to be a particular religion to hold an office at the federal level.

However, this allows for the individual States to do so, as several did at the time of ratification of the US Constitution.

So, if the state of Kentucky wants to wallpaper its courtroom with copies of the Ten Commandments, require holders of state offices to be deacons in the Catholic Church, and make Catholicism the Kentucky State Religion; that is the business of the State of Kentucky, the Kentucky Constitution, Kentucky's voters, and their elected representatives. The SCOTUS has no leg to stand on to make any ruling becasue the US Constitution has not granted fed.gov the authority to act in such a case.

Also, Amendment I precludes an establishment of religion but does not preclude other legislation which has an effect on or acknowledges religion. Examples close to home are religious establishments' tax exemptions and immunizations of poor children in private religious schools. Examples more contemporaneous to the founding fathers have been given.

If we want fed.gov to have the power to act in such cases, we have an amendment process. This is the same answer I would give to the anti-gunners who don't like what Amendment II says.

*********

In the recent SCOTUS cases, I had hoped that both Kentucky and Texas would come out on top, not because I want the Ten Commandments plastered on the walls of courthouses and in their restrooms above the urinals, but because I wanted to be pleasantly surprised that the SCOTUS would stay within the bounds of the US Constitution.

With Raich, Kelso, and now the Kentucky ruling, this has been a bad year for those who take the US Constitution at its word.

***********

Quote from: revdisk
All or nothing suits me and the Constitution.
It might suit you, but it does not necessarily suit the US Constitution.  Refer to Amendments I & X.

Quote from: revdisk
The issue is government preference.  Let me turn this around on you.   Why shouldn't Wiccans be allowed to put their Rede next to the 10 Commandments?  Or any other religions do the same.   Gimme a solid excuse.
Amendment I does not say the fed.gov can not have a preference or has to treat all religions with an even hand.  It says Congress can't establish a national church.  The individual States can do so, however (with reference to the restrictions of their constitutions and wishes of their representatives and citizens).  See Amendment X.

***********

If you want  the US Congress to have even less...congress...with things religious, write your US Congresscritters and encourage such legislation.  If you want more such prohibitions written into the US Constitution, write your US Congresscritters and write your reps in your state legislature to work on passing such an amendment to the US Constitution.

If you want your individual state to have fewer dealings with religion, write your state reps & beauracrtitters.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2005, 08:51:48 AM »
Quote from: jfruser
This says nothing about a "wall of separation," neutrality, irreligion, hostility to religion, mandatory endorsement of religion, or an even hand with regard to religions. It simply states that Congress will not pass a law making any religion the national religion (as they had in many european countries at the time) and that the US Congress can't tell you what to worship. Also (from Article VI), you don't have to be a particular religion to hold an office at the federal level.
The exact wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".   Also, 14th amendment still holds.   Equal protection under the law.  




Quote
It might suit you, but it does not necessarily suit the US Constitution.  Refer to Amendments I & X.

Amendment I does not say the fed.gov can not have a preference or has to treat all religions with an even hand.  It says Congress can't establish a national church.  The individual States can do so, however (with reference to the restrictions of their constitutions and wishes of their representatives and citizens).  See Amendment X.
Not exactly.  See Amendment XIV, Section 1.




Quote
If you want  the US Congress to have even less...congress...with things religious, write your US Congresscritters and encourage such legislation.  If you want more such prohibitions written into the US Constitution, write your US Congresscritters and write your reps in your state legislature to work on passing such an amendment to the US Constitution.

If you want your individual state to have fewer dealings with religion, write your state reps & beauracrtitters.
The current Constitution is just fine, thank you.   Of course, I happen to think my state Constitution does a slightly better job of wording some of the same protections listed in Bill of Rights.  But that's a matter of semantics, mostly.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

griz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,030
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2005, 05:35:26 PM »
I just read through the THR thread and this one. Their "depends on the context" decision must be pretty close to right, because both sides are now quoting the constitution as part of their argumnets.

There I am, sitting right on top of the fence.
Sent from a stone age computer via an ordinary keyboard.

Strings

  • Guest
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2005, 06:39:08 PM »
griz... I hadn't read through the decision when I posted. I tend to agree with ya...

Guest

  • Guest
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2005, 09:55:18 PM »
Quote
I have no problem with the Commandments being displayed somewhere in a courthouse. Of course, I think it would be good to also display the Magna Charta, Constitution, and some form of Hamurabi's code. These are all things that Western law is based on, and would be appropriate in a courthouse.
There is in fact an image of Moses himself carrying the ten commandments in the U.S. Supreme Court chamber along with an image of Hamurabi, among several others that i dont recall. The issue isnt wether or not the ten commandments are "bad" its wether or not the context of their display constitutes a government endorsement of a particular religion.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2005, 06:10:15 AM »
Quote
AMENDMENT XIV, Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
1. Amendment 14 may make a religious test passed by the individual states invalid.
2. It still has nothing to say WRT how the individual states treat religion and the possiblity of a religion established by an individual state.
3. Posting something which an individual citizen of a state thinks is offensive (for religious or other reasons) is not a violation of equal protection of the laws.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments
« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2005, 06:15:09 AM »
Quote from: c_yeager
The issue isnt wether or not the ten commandments are "bad" its wether or not the context of their display constitutes a government endorsement of a particular religion.
Two points:
1. The US Const has nothing to say WRT an individual state's endorsement/establishment of religion.  
2. As far as fed.gov's relations with religion, if it isn't establishing a state religion, it has a relatively free hand.

I know this isn't as fashinable as the current SC opinions, but it is more of an "originalist" reading.  "Living Constitution" advocates can make the US Const mean whatever they want it to mean, to include the exact opposite.  See Raich.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton