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?

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)

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)

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)

Is that really true? I hadn't heard that at all.

---

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

Good there is your challenge then. You produce evidence that the term "separation of Church and State" as used by Anabaptists (or others), specifically when enacting laws and govt within the US, is qualitatively different than the position I advance.Indeed I would like to also see what you believe "pro-secularist" means to me. I have told you several times and have had to repeat myself because you keep returning to a totally different concept.As a beginning we can start with a common point of reference, Roger Williams. You posited him in specific as an example of emerging and founding systems of law within the colonies which used SoC&S. From Wiki... This is all relevant to the general question of separation but even more important to the specific question of this court case. The display of 10 Commandments is always accompanied with the claim that it has influenced our govt and laws. That most certainly occured in this court case as RAZD has shown.Clearly the usage of SoC&S was such that it EXCLUDED the 10 Commandments from influence in laws and govt. Thus such claims are **** or willfully ignorant distortions, by such proponents.I'll start with that and your challenge is clear. If you respond with more fundamentalist assertions and misrepresentations of my "secular" position, you'll reveal youself for what you are and what value your words have.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-24-2005 07:18 AM

---

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

More important than this is that the claim made was "profoundly influenced the formation of Western legal thought and the formation of our country".There is no mention of any references in the display to the actual PROFOUND influences like Locke on legal thought, and the Declaration is neither a pronouncement of legal thought nor formative structures for our nation.I'm wondering if you noticed a potentially more troubling issue within the decision itself. The Judge appears to have created a new test within such cases, being the "reasonable person" test. That is courts need only worry about whether a reasonable person is complaining about religious iconography. Thus the claim gets based on the intention or temperament of the complainant? Holy shit. How can the ACLU ever get a case accepted, or feel that it is being accepted in that court, without partisan bias given that it is now deemed an "unreasonable person" on such issues.Intriguingly the court does not suggest it is appropriate to judge the reasonability of those promoting the display in contention. For example the ACLJ is a dramatic proponent of merging state and religion. Thus the test is born. If you do not agree with the court it must be because you are unreasonable.Excuse me but the history does show an intention to promote religion. It only does not if you accept the court's argument that you must divorce the actions of one group from another, even if they appear to have derived their idea from that other group. Intriguingly if you buy into that argument then the 10 Commandments have no reason to belong on that wall anyway.And it does not matter that they did not promote the four commandments which were religious, they did not denounce them as being irrelevant and inconsistent either. They gave the full set and said that set helped form the basis of our nation. That has implications, even to a reasonable person.Furthermore the reasonable person will note that they have omitted fully secular influences to legal thought, and provided no reasonable explanation of how the remaining 6 commandments were somehow a unique contributor to Western thought. The last 6 can generally be found in most laws and govts stemming from the beginning of history. First of all the "national motto" is E Pluribus Unum. At least that was the one that is a cherished TRADITION. The motto In God We Trust came about later and was not fully incorporated until 1956 in a fit of religious overstepping. A reasonable person has a reasonable complaint against that. Second, the Declaration was before our govt existed and so could not be unconstitutional speech. Nor did it endorse anything in the same way that the 10 commandments does.But this is less important than what this court has just set up. Now, anyone who does not ENJOY display of religious iconography by the govt is deemed unreasonable. That is not only do you have to like it, you must believe that there is some real connection between specific religious texts and our laws and govt, despite none being shown at all.I am not against personal expressions of religious belief by govt officials, or noting that those that founded the nation were religious and what those religions were. But when people undermine the actual influences on politics and law which they themselves note in their own writings, and replace them with mere religious prosyletization in pretense that we were an emerging Xian vanguard, then THEY are being unreasonable.This decision has placed the courts as defender of religion having formed our govt against anyone which questions such assertions. The latter are now powerless and unreasonable people.This seems to me a rather dangerous and offensive precedent.

---

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

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.

---

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

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

AbE: Just to let you know something I replied to within this point made me wonder if you had not understood what I was discussing. The following post shows where I made my first comment (the one you replied to) and what it was in response to. You might want to start there first. Maybe it will make this post moot... 1) Whether he did or did not, does not change what form of argument you were using. You asserted, I asked for some more information in light of other information that is out there, and then you reasserted. Eisenhower isn't going to help you.2) Ironically here you ask for evidence. If I ask you for evidence you don't have to give it because its out there, but when I say something I must provide evidence? Is that how it works?3) I am aware of what Eisenhower did and I have since given you other sources which explain what it meant for EPU. The authors of the act have ruled that it did not repeal or replace EPU, and that EPU could still be used as a motto. Liberty was not officially made the nation's motto at any time in our history, EPU was at the very beginning. There is a big difference between the two. I didn't say that or mean that (perhaps you can point to where I said EPU was THE national motto), I proved the sex organ definition was valid (specifically in the context I stated I was using it), ???, ???. Those last two you simply made up as filler. Anus doesn't mean anus? Congress made the Act and ruled that it did not repeal the original act. What part of "did not repeal the original act" do you not understand. If an act exists, and it is not repealed, it is in effect. That is compounded when the same body also says it may continue to be used as a national motto.Now here's the thing I don't get, with all the semantic differences between "a" and "the" you seem to have missed the obvious. There would be no need for the congress to say something could be continued to be used as a motto, if they did not mean officially. Coins can be printed with the phrase whether it is a motto or not, and its not like people can be stopped from saying it if it isn't allowed to be a motto. So why would they discuss its usage as A motto, unless they meant as AN OFFICIAL motto? Tradition has everything to do with what we're discussing. That's what was being discussed before you came around. Which US MOTTO has a LONG TRADITION. There was an idea being put forward that IGWT was, but my point was EPU has a longer history as a national motto. But it didn't. You are now outright fabricating. You really can't handle the truth can you? This is the link I provided, and in the motto section it clearly reads: I have to admit something certainly seems to have been changed on the other pages. I find that interesting and given that you have been shown to misrepresent data and plagiarize that raises and interesting question (in my mind) of who might have made the changes.In any case, this does not change much. It appears there is a contradiction now within wiki. There is a contradiction between it and the boy scout discussion of the motto. This leaves me right about where I was before. I am still willing to accept more info. INFO. You were asserting and the fact that you can read into something Theo cited, or find changes in parts of something I cited, does not change the fact that all you had done was assert.I totally grant that IGWT is A motto, and it is certainly the one that will be in principle usage . But in the context of the what was being discussed, I am still right. They are co-mottos. They can both be used, and described as historic and traditional mottos for the nation.If they can both be used, they are FUNCTIONAL comottos.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-01-2006 12:41 PM

---

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

You asked what tradition had to do with anything. This is from post 22, the post your replied to which started the whole ball rolling. First was a quote from the decision (color changed to emphasize important parts for THIS discussion)... Immediately followed by my response... Now do you understand what I was addressing and why tradition is the question on the table? While I start with an overstatement, the very next sentence puts it into proper context. The third sentence shows I at least vaguely understood when and where it was "replaced". I was getting at the idea that the court's description of IGWT being some tradition is flawed, especially when addressing the issue at hand (up till that point in the thread) which was separation of church and state.He was trying to place IGWT as a motto with a history like that of the DoI, which is not true at all. Our longest running traditional motto is EPU, and having been instituted by those that took part in the DoI, arguably has more relevance as a TRADITION.I might also note that when you initially replied to me my reply stated that IGWT was not instituted in a way that "wholly replaced" EPU. Principle or Primary usage, which is what I think you are getting at, does not mean wholly replaced. If EPU can legitimately be used as a national motto by the govt... and evidence so far supplied indicates the govt still does (and not just on coins)... then it has not been WHOLLY replaced.

---

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