The ACLU finds some time

[OldGreyEagle]

Yes

[johndaigler]

Nice move -- can you do that to music????

[fling1]

jd,

The ten commandments are not displayed next to Minerva, at least not in a way that includes the "no other gods" text. All of the ten commandment depictions scattered among the Supreme Court building are symbolically represented as simply tablets, sometimes containing the roman numerals I - X.

As the artists explained them, that allows them to represent ancient laws in general, while evoking an association to the commandments. The commandments are not on display, but rather the concept of ancient laws in general (of which the commandments can be considered an example) are on display.

It is all very interesting. Look it up at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/archdetails.html

I really like the way the artwork strives to honor many traditions and symbolize the essential purpose of the court. This is easily contrasted with the displays that have been challenged in front of this same court.

[vmpost]

Wow! There is a reason our parents told us to avoid conversations about politics and religion! Some of you seem to have a good sense of balance about this. But wowsers! Many of you need to learn to give others the respect you are demanding without earning... As I read the many posts, I had a few thoughts...

 

1) Our country/government was created by God-fearing people. If you don't like it...change history.

 

2)Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Nowhere does it guarantee freedom FROM religion.

 

3)The idea of separation of church and state didn't come about until the 60's...and this was proclaimed by the COURTS...not the law.

 

4)Just because you don't like someone's behavior(s) doesn't mean you have to hate the person. (If you can't figure out how this works, that is why you can't figure out why BSA can exclude groups like atheists or homosexuals, yet still be kind and loving people.)

 

 

[scoutldr]

The "wall of separation" was first conceived by Jefferson, 1802. See, to wit:

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[BrentAllen]

The "wall" mentioned by Jefferson was a simple restatement of the text in the Constitution. It did not identify any new interpretation of the language. The broad, liberal interpretation came through the courts much, much later.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

James Madison, the guy who actually wrote the first amendment, said it did not allow congress to appoint a congressional chaplain and pay him using public money. Madison's views are about as broad and liberal as they come.

[BrentAllen]

Madison was overruled, so your point was?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

That the supposedly recent "liberal" interpretation is what Madison intended. The "wall of separation" metaphor predates the USA and is not a recent creation.

[BrentAllen]

So would it be safe to say the rejection of his liberal interpretation goes back to the forming of this country?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No, it wouldn't be, and if you were familiar with what Madison and Jefferson wrote, you'd know that.

[evmori]

It's freedom of religion and speech. Not from either!

 

And you never answered, Merlyn, do you believe in those gods represented on and in the SCOTUS building?

 

One more question, why are you not trying to get the Ten Commandments removed from the SCOTUS building?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, I guess you just can understand that atheists don't believe in any gods, so asking me if I believe in gods simply means you still don't understand what 'atheist' means.

 

And where are the ten commandments you are referring to? Does it have the bit about "thou shalt have no other gods before me" or the bit about "thou shalt not cook a kid in its mother's milk"? There's more than one set of ten commandments in the bible, you know.

[evmori]

And where are the ten commandments you are referring to?

 

The one held by Moses on the courtroom frieze.

[fling1]

I've made this point before, but I'll go ahead and lob it in here again for your entertainment...

The US Constitution was created to both establish and limit the power of the Feds over the sovereignty of the states. The establishment clause of the 1st Ammendment is the clearest possible example of this. The states reserved for themselves the power to establish a religion if they chose to. Massechussetts did in fact choose to. It's first constitution called for the public support of "protestant instruction." Clearly establishing a religion (Christian, but NOT Catholic) to be preferred by the state. Back in the "pledge unconstitutional?" thread, I posted some links to the relevant Massachussetts documents. They make interesting reading, if you want to see for yourself. http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=111023&p=6

It was not until the 14th Ammendment was passed that the states (including their local jurisdictions) had to apply the 1st Ammendment's establishment clause to their own operations. We have been working through the fine points of what that means to state and local governments ever since.

It is too simple an approach to just review what the 1st Ammendment intended, because its establishment clause did not mean then what it means now, post 14th. Then it reserved the power of establishment for the states. Now it restricts the state from using those same powers.