Ruling: No Separation of Church and State?

quote:

---

• Vice President
• Speaker of the House of Representatives
• President pro tempore of the Senate
• Secretary of State

---

when reagon got shot, do you know who took over?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-25-2005 05:26 PM

---

אָרַח

Actually, no one. Reagan was in the hospital and Bu$h senior was in Texas at the time. He returned to Washington but was in contact at all times. Authority remained with President Reagan though and was never devolved to Bu$h.To return to the thread topic though, President Reagan did respect the separation of church and state and only asked that his surgeons be Republicans.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

well, haig claimed publically to be in control of the government.

---

אָרַח

Most people took that of a sign of how badly Haig was out of touch with reality.

---

Impeach Bush

and condi's not?

We seem to have moved to a subject better placed somewhere else. Since it seems like this news story is true, let's focus on the impact of this decision. Some questions which come to mind:1) Is there in fact a separation of church and state?
2) If so, what can be done about this court's errant decision (assuming it gets backed by the new SC)?
3) If not, should there b?... and is it time to lay this question to rest by making sure if there wasn't clearly before there is such a thing NOW. This is our watch after all.
4) And as a more practical question, what happens when you have the Dover decision appealing to a concept which this other court weakens? For example, is it that the ID theorists and original board members were "reasonable" and everyone else unreasonable?
5) What does this reasonable "test" mean for religious issues brought to court, particularly by the ACLU? (and can judges be censured for making an organization an enemy of the court?)

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I would not be surprised if this gets overturned, fairly fast. There is too much presidence it is ignoring for one thing. There have been too many supreme court rulings that have upheld the principle of 'seperation of church and state'.

IMHO after reading the transcript of the opinion, this particular case was resolved correctly.In this particular case it really does look like the Ten Commandments was simply incidental to a larger body of work, and that the overall body of work was not meant to further one particular point of view over all others.However, the additional wording of the opinion is troubling and for that reason, I hope there is additional review. I would like to see the outcome stand, in regard to the display itself, but believe the reasoning outlined in the decision is spurious.I hope that under review the decision is upheld but the logic and wording of the decision is changed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree that the reasoning was more troubling than the immediate result of the decision, however... One of us misread something about this case.From what I read at another courthouse there were a number of displays attempted which were flagrant violations. Each new display was altered slightly so as to skirt violation as much as possible, but keep the 10 commandments in there and somehow prominent. Finally one was arrived at where the Supreme Court chopped it mainly because of the history. That is to say people obviously just wanted to have a religious display and were doing whatever they could to fly it in under the radar. Thus even if the final display was not as flagrantly in violation had it been the first, given the history it was.So then another court takes essentially that same last display and puts it up, and then argues it shouldn't be judged in violation because it was the first display for THAT courthouse and so should not be judged based on another courthouse's history.Well that is simply ludicrous to me. That allows people to just keep testing things until they find what only holds as long as the main exclusion is history and then spread it around. The INTENTION of everyone is the same and they are using the history of others to do what they are doing. It is willful ignorance.As far as the display itself it is still rather clearly an attempt to promote religion, and not much (if anything) to do with the formation of our government and laws. There is NO connection between the 10 commandments and our govt or laws. Yet the note on the plaque makes patently false assertions of such a connection. In the list of what was in the collection I see very little of anything secular that in fact WERE the sources (foundations) for our govt and law.The fact that the congress signed a treaty stating we are NOT FOUNDED on Xianity and Xian principles, makes that whole display (and the 10 commandments plaque) a fraud or lie, and so beyond the pale for being in a courthouse where perjury is supposed to be a crime.Are govts allowed to simply make up "facts" and post them around? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Correct as I read it.The final display at the other courthouse was rejected based not on the content of the display but the history of the changes AND on the fact that the changes were made before being reviewed even though a review procss was established. At least that is how I read the transcript.But this is a different county and a different incident. I agree that the second courthouse should not the judged based on the history of the first courthouse. From what I could gather from the transcript, the display is pretty sophomoric. Frankly, it sounds more like what one would expect from a sixth or seventh grade social studies project. And there I disagree slightly. IMHO the purpose of both the 1^st. and the 14^th. Amendments were to minimize the very great influence that Christianity, and particularly the different interpretations of Christianity that were so much a part of the culture of the period. IIRC that Treaty was later repealed.I do believe that the US was founded in spite of Christian principles but I think one of the biggest issues is that we simply do a lousy job of teaching history.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

1) When it pretty obviously lifts the last product from the first courthouse, why should its actions not be judged based on the history of the first. I can sort of get it if two totally unconnected persons, who had no way of knowing each other or what the other was doing, happen to produce something similar. But that does not at all seem to be the case here. There is a definite and specified evangelist movement seeking to provoke and offend nonXians by getting the 10 Commandments into courthouses. I find it very hard to believe that the 2nd courthouse had no clue what was going on in the relatively nearby communities, and just happened to come up with the latest product.2) There is no sense that we can know that the ONLY reason for rejection of the first courthouse's display, was because of history. The point given in the SC decision was that history was sufficient. It looked to me like the Judge here was sqeezing through a semantic loophole. Agreed, and given the false statements provided on the plaque containing the 10 commandments it is rather offensive. I don't see why, barring history, this was also not seen for what it was, a veiled attempt to provoke and offend.Seriously, the issue over 10 commandments displays is well known. Many do not like it. So why go about forcing it, except to boast in order to snub those that disagree... to show political power of one group over another? Yeah, I guess if the plaque read..."The 10 Commandments played a significant role in the foundation of our nation's laws and govt. Attempts to rule based on its tenets failed miserably, and provided an example of why gov't should not contain religious tenets within its basis. Note that many of the 10 Commandments were ruled out a priori by the founders and some of their direct predecessors."...then I wouldn't have as much of a problem. The point is that the plaque is presenting a false impression of the role the 10 commandments played in the history of our nation. If the reason for this misrepresentation is not obvious to you, then I'm a bit taken aback. That's not exactly correct. First of all let's make clear, the Treaty was read before the Senate and approved unanimously by the govt (legislative through executive) with the words..."As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."Regardless of what happened to the treaty later, this shows that the govt at its inception was in agreement on that matter... NOT FOUNDED on the Christian religion.So what happened to the Treaty? It was broken by the people we were signing with. We went to war, and a new treaty had to be signed afterward. The above section was left out of the new treaty, but that would make sense as we had by that time warred against a mahometan nation, and the rest was superfluous to mention since it added nothing but "flavor" to the treaty, which had already been recognized and enacted in an earlier treaty.It is interesting to see what they put in the display, and what they left conspicuously absent. What is absent are the secular sources. I find it astonishing that a display can be said to serve a secular use or be secular in nature, when it glaringly omits secular entities well known to be part of the formation of our govt, and yet contains scripture.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I was aware of the institution of IGWT, as well as the letter you quoted (and the significance of what that means). However, from what I understand E Pluribus Unum is still our motto, and the longest standing one. IGWT was placed as a motto, but not in a way that it wholly replaced EPU. Technically we have two.

​

I'm open to evidence against this.

---

What part of is so hard to comprehend? Do you need me to give you the official document? You couldn't look it up for yourself? Do I have to do all your homework for you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

The part where I am supposed to take your assertion as gospel. I said I was open to new info on the subject, so why you have to be an asshole about it I do not know. What, you have no self control? Who says you have to do anything? Oh wait a minute, you DIDN'T do anything. All you did was REassert your position in an insulting manner, and add some insults on top of it.By the way, after your complete plagiarism+misinfo act in the other thread, I wouldn't want to have you do my homework at all, though it would be nice enough to see you do some of your own. Uh... I did actually. I can't seem to find the exact resolution, or rather I find some which suggest they are and all that it says is... or Given that we already had one, and there is no mention of it, this resolution could be taken different ways, which I already told you I had seen discussed elsewhere as making IGWT a parallel motto with EPU.Another poster posted a link from the boyscouts of america regarding the history of the motto, which supported my position. Here is the link, and here is what it says... So the strongest position appears to come from the Department of State, and not the legislature. And even the State Department does not deny EPU is a motto.If you have something to add to the discussion begin providing documentation, or STFU.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-29-2005 01:12 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What part of... is so hard to comprehend?

---

​

The part where I am supposed to take your assertion as gospel.

---

So I'm supposed to do all your homework for you? You are incapable of actually looking something up on your own? When given the date and administration in which it happened, it is impossible for you to take the initiative to satisfy your own curiosity?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do I have to do all your homework for you?

---

​

What, you have no self control? Who says you have to do anything?

---

(*sigh*)It goes to the issue of integrity, holmes. You asked a question. You were given the answer along with sufficient information for you to look up the references for yourself. Rather than actually doing that, you whined that you hadn't been given the specific document. Rather than looking up the information for yourself, you insisted that your preconceived notion, which you admit was based only upon personal assertion, had to be correct.

quote:

---

you did was REassert your position

---

Huh? You mean Eisenhower didn't sign the legislation making "In God We Trust" the national motto on July 30, 1956. You have evidence for this? Oh...my apologies. That would require you looking something up.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You couldn't look it up for yourself?

---

​

Uh... I did actually.

---

Obviously, you didn't. Or you would have found what Theodoric quoted to you: If you had looked it up for yourself simply by typing "national motto of the United States" into your favorite search engine, you would have found US Code Title 36 Chapter 10 Section 186. That's what that "70 Stat. 732. 36 U.S. Code 186" means. It's a reference to the US Code. You could have looked it up. Did you?Obviously not or you wouldn't be making such a fool of yourself.Of course, that was the code at the time. If you had done any searching through current US Code, you would have found the language in US Code Title 36 Subtitle I Part A Chapter 3 Section 302: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."Here's a hint: Try the Cornell Law School for a searchable database of the US Code. No, I'm not going to give you the link. Do your own homework.

quote:

---

Given that we already had one, and there is no mention of it, this resolution could be taken different ways

---

We're back in holmes-speak land. A direct statement that "'In God We Trust' is the national motto" doesn't actually mean that the motto is "In God We Trust."

quote:

---

Another poster posted a link from the boyscouts of america regarding the history of the motto, which supported my position.

---

But I thought you said you looked up the information for yourself. Which is it? Are you relying on your own investigation into the US Code or are you relying on Theodoric.That said, Theodoric's comments do not support your position. You understand the difference between the definite and the indefinite article, yes? Or is this another instance of holmes-speak where words don't actually mean what they appear to mean but instead mean the exact opposite and thus "THE national motto" doesn't actually mean a declaration of what the motto actually is. It's only an indication of what the motto might be."E Pluribus Unum" is printed on the money, yes. That doesn't make it the national motto. You do understand the difference between phrases that are placed upon money and the national motto, yes? On January 18, 1837, Congress passed an Act that standardized the mottoes and devices to be placed on currency. At that time, "E Pluribus Unum" was dropped from silver coins (it had been dropped from most gold coins in 1834 with the change in fineness of the gold used.) About 35 years later, on February 12, 1873, another Act of Congress put it back. However, it seems Mint officials didn't take the Act too seriously and not all coins produced after 1873 have the motto. Go look it up if you don't believe me. It should be fairly obvious where you might try. I'm not doing your homework for you.But you will note, however, that this is just about what to put on a coin. It is not a declaration of what THE national motto is. After all, there are three mottoes on the coins: "E Pluribus Unum," "In God We Trust," and "Liberty" along with "The United States of America" to identify the coin as US Currency, the date of mintage, the value of the coin, and perhaps the minter's mark (the details can be found in the US Code which you can easily look up on your own.) The fact that text appears on a coin doesn't make it the motto of the US.And you will find that nowhere in the US Code is "E Pluribus Unum" mentioned as THE national motto. Instead, the US Code directly states that THE national motto is "In God We Trust."

quote:

---

So the strongest position appears to come from the Department of State, and not the legislature.

---

Incorrect. Declaration of THE national motto is reserved to Congress. US Code is written by Congress and THE national motto is mentioned in US Code. "E Pluribus Unum" is mentioned exactly once in the US Code, solely as text to be placed upon the coins. In the section declaring THE national motto, we don't find any mention of "E Pluribus Unum."Now, you did claim that you looked this information up, yes? So you read the US Code with respect to the national motto, yes? You actually searched for any reference to "E Pluribus Unum" in the US Code, yes? You searched for any reference to "In God We Trust" in the US Code, yes? You searched for any reference to "national motto" in the US Code, yes?Obviously not or you wouldn't be making such a fool of yourself by insisting that "E Pluribus Unum" is somehow a secondary national motto.There's only one.I've done enough of your homework for you. Instead of merely claiming that you looked it up when you so clearly didn't, why don't you actually do it for a change.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Did your brain break when caught misrepresenting and plagiarizing info? Its like you couldn't even read what I was saying. I'll try this once more...I looked this subject up before, as well as after your post. I apparently found the same material you did, and more. I said I was willing to look at more info on the subject.That was an honest point of disagreement and an honest request. That's what people do here all the time. Instead you simply reassert your statement, and try to insult me.Your assertions are not adequate as there is more info out there. I pointed you to another poster's post within this thread as an example of the other type of information out there on this subject. I chose it because it was easier to go back to, than going somewhere else to get something I had read which says the same thing. The idea that my ref'ing his post is evidence that I did no research before is patently fallacious. Oh you mean like when I said to you... Read that quote and look at your quote. Guess what I was looking at? Truly its like your brainpower is shrivelling before my eyes. My question now is if you even understand what my position is, because there is no question that his CITATION'S comments (they weren't theodoric's) did support my position. One of the sentence's you did not deal with was... Yes IGWT was made the motto of the US, but EPU was not repealed or prohibited from being used as a national motto. Given that it already was THE ONLY official motto at this nation's inception, and the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITEE recognized the resolution did not repeal or prohibit its use as a national motto, that leaves EPU as A motto.Further the emphasis on IGWT being THE motto, was made by the State Department. This was in the quote by T's citation. Here you go (again)... I should have noted that the "The" was italicized in the original citation. But you knew that because you did your homework right? So what that says is while the legislature made the resolution, and its own judiciary commitee declared the res as not removing EPU, the STATE DEPARTMENT took the stronger stand that "the motto", meant "the singular official motto". I would question the state department's ability to overrule the legislature's findings on their own resolutions, but anyway even the state department concedes EPU is a motto. Thanks for backing me up. The judiciary commitee apparently ruled that "the" was not "THE" in the way you suggest. The state department said it was and the judiciary commitee disagreed.Now are you planning on dealing with the evidence presented or are you only going to deal with the quotes you mine out of it? Yes I did look things up and I reported what I found. I would suggest that I am not coming off as foolish as the person who has yet to do anything but reassert, and ignore contrary evidence presented to him.So far my position remains unchallenged, and indeed supported. EPU was the original motto of the US. Though IGWT was later made the motto, the resolution was decided by Congress to not have repealed the original declaration of EPU as a motto, and that it still could be used. That makes it a functional co-motto. And it most certainly can be considered the longest running and so traditional motto of the US (which was my original point in this thread on that subject). Here is a link to Wiki's entry on the US. Look at what it gives for the motto. Then look up both of them using the links to both mottos. It appears there are many more people that have the seen the same info as I, and theodoric, and the boy scouts, have seen.Are you ever going to deal with evidence presented to you?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)