Ruling: No Separation of Church and State?

I went to Wiki to look something up and on the front page there was a comment that a judge had ruled today that the first amendment does not provide a separation between church and state and so allows 10 Commandments at court houses.Did this really happen? I can't find news on this anywhere except at a catholic news site. Is this a wiki error?Here is the entry at a news link provided at wiki for the judgment... This would be a rather tragic decision, coming directly on the heels of the Dover decision. Its interesting to see the judge use essentially semantics in order to support his own position.Yeah, those WORDS don't appear in the Constitution. Its just that the guy who actually wrote the words in the Constitution described the 1st amendment as creating that separation.Anyone have more on this?

And it's not how the Constitution was interpreted for 150 years. Sorry but if this true, the judge is right. There is no "separation clause" in the Constitution. It is indeed an "extra-constitutional construct" that has outlived it's usefulness.The question should be whether any law has been passed respecting an establishment of religion. If no law has been passed, then it's Constitutional.

Let's see here:1) First amendment written in specific language,
2) Writer explicitly states that those specific words create a "wall between church and state".That means that there is a "separation clause" in the Constitution. Not with those flowery words, but using other more legalistic words.You have not shown that it was not interpreted that way, much less for 150 years. So if a town decides to put minarets on the local courthouse and Quranic scripture everywhere, and all women entering are required to wear burkas and men must be unshaved... that would be great by you because it was a policy decision, rather than a law?Do you know if the event I am asking about occured or not?

---

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

The term "wall of separation" was a Baptist term with a specific historical meaning at the time, and completely different than the concept of separation today. Regardless, it's not in the Constitution. If it was enforced behaviour with penalties, it is a de facto law. Now, putting up displays, Christian or Moslem or whatever, is not a de facto law.Capische?

Okay see, that is lying. We have been over this with evidence, evidence you yourself cited. In the Danbury letter Jefferson used the phrase and it was quite clear there and elsewhere that he was not refering to the weak version you pretend to.How come you guys can't deal with facts? Always, pretense toward constructionism and patriotism, then rejection of what they wrote including texts describing what they meant. So you would be comfortable with an Islamic courthouse? You'd think that's a good atmosphere for a govt to be setting?

---

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

More info: http://clelaw.lib.oh.us/public/decision/CTA6/122005.htmlI can only hope that this goes to a higher court or something.

Wrong Holmes. You are the one lying here. He was writing to the Danbury Baptists, and thus using their term. It's like the term pro-life. Pretty much everyone knows the term pro-life means anti-abortion, right? Some may argue it means anti-death penalty, and some pro-lifers are anti-death penalty, but that's not what the term means. Most pro-lifers are not necessarily against the death penalty.So 200 years from now, someone reading a letter written to Dr Dobson claiming the Constitution is fully in accordance with his concerns and is "pro-life" should not refer to whatever "pro-life" means 200 years from now, but what it means today, and today it means anti-abortion.You are reading a modernist interpretation of the term separation of Church and State back into history, and you are wrong. I am sorry that you cannot come to grips with historical reality, but it's not my fault that you cannot. The term "separation of Church and State" stems straight out of Anabaptism, not the Enlightenment.

oh crap.

Really? You only refered to the letter by name. I cited the actual letter which included the original text, and also the original draft with discussion of changes (in his own hand writing).Why exactly am I to believe YOU over Jefferson himself? But he didn't just use the term did he? The man discussed what it meant not only in that letter but elsewhere and practiced it within his administration. Modernist? I have read it from the original documents of Jefferson and other founding fathers. I cite them and give links. The only thing you do is paraphrase fundamentalist apologetics. It is at best pure semantics.And I will point out to you one last time that the Anabaptist that you pointed out as an exemplar in the US, got in trouble rejecting almost exactly what was within the present case on the basis of separation of Church and State. Did you know this or not? You should because I pointed out to you already.Thus even your own appeals to the past and anabaptism show an over willful ignorance of history and facts.I think this may be my last reply to you. Your continual "forgetfulness" of things I have already said to you, misrepresentations of my personal position (I mean how many times do I have to be called a dem or that I like Clinton), as well as facts leads me to the conclusion that you are:1) A troll who is simply trying to get a rise out of me by acting so outrageously,
or
2) A fool whose ignorance runs so deep it just isn't worth wasting my life trying to discuss things with.

---

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

I notice that this was posted with the 10 commandments, presumably as the "explanation" or justification of the display: (color mine for emPHAsis)."Clearly seen??" WHERE??? I don't see any reference to the 10 commandments in the DOI at all ... clearly this is stretching well beyond the truth to make a point that does not in fact stand to honest scrutiny. Clearly this is a groundless assertion that is more wishful fancy than fact. Clearly this is misrepresentation of the truth.Why does the truth need to be misrepresented?Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*23*2005 09:20 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's quite clear that the term separation of Church and State stems from the Anabaptists and indeed is qualitatively different than the pro-secularist positiuon you advance.

oh stop it.we don't want your god taking over our country. you remember what happened in england and spain when your god took over the country? they had mass, government-instituted killings of those who didn't agree. now just let it go and let us live. christ's sake.give unto caesar what is caesar's.

Lots of definitions of "respect" available, but I'm pretty sure this is the one they were shooting for:re·spect
To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.So, the point is to have Congress avoid making laws that are pro-one religion or anti-some other religion.Is that a "seperation of church and state"? Not entirely.For example, the Supreme Court could hand down a decision based solely on their religious views. It would not violate this clause - since the clause refers to Congress.Additionally, the President could veto a bill on solely religious views and likewise not violate this clause.However, there's clearly more going on here. What's being said is this "The Government should not be taking sides in religious debate."Likewise, the Government should not be handing money to one group or people based on their religion, they shouldn't be giving people a pass to break the law based on their religion, and they certainly shouldn't be twisting the laws of the land to fit into a specific idiology of an individual religion.And, while the true power of the US Government SHOULD reside in the Congress, it has steadily been pulled toward the Executive branch.So, when people complain about seperation of Church and State, what they are really saying now adays is that they don't like how the unconstitutional powers of the Executive are being steered by non-elected officials who cowtow to extreme religious groups.After all, Ashcroft ANNOINTED HIMSELF IN OIL upon taking office as AG! That's more than just a little weird.

"Respecting" simply means "concerning." It has nothing to do with respect. Congress is just forbidden from regulating religion. That's all.

If "respecting" means "concerning" or "regarding", then isn't the second part of that sentence ("or prohibiting...") a little redundant?