The Ten Commandments

[musicman]

The closing sentence of the Constitution reads:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

I can only assume you meant 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.

You are correct.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree, but a teacher telling her students that Islam is the true faith and that they should reject whatever faith their parents practice in favor of it isn't a LAW either. However, it is equally prohibited. That was the point of the first part of my earlier post.

I agree, her free speech is protected. Let us also have a voucher system so students can shop for the school of his/her choice, then we'll see how her madrassa functions. she should have the right to discuss her faith with the class. So do the christian teachers. Can YOU handle it?

 

[no1tovote4]

Let's examine this:

OK. First, secularism isn't a religion but the absence of religion (just a minor point, read on). The court has in the past gone out of its way to prevent governments and government units and employees from taking actions which promote religious views. This does promote governmental secularism, but it doesn't establish secularism in society. Private individuals always have the right to practice, demonstrate or proselytize their religious beliefs in anyway they see fit. Thus, the courts don't tell anyone what religion may be established. Communities or people may establish and practice any religion they wish. Governments cannot influence them in their choice. If the government were to prevent practice of religion by the people (private individuals) this would affront the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

You are wrong Secular Humanism is a religion and has even been ruled so by the SCOTUS.

This page examines two issues:
http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm
1. Secular Humanists and Humanistic courts have admitted that Humanism is a religion.
2. Why they now claim Humanism is not a religion, in order to avoid problems under the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment.

In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Secular Humanism was a religion. Nevertheless, many Humanists deny the significance of the Court's assertion. In order to buttress the claim that the identification of Secular Humanism as a religion in a footnote in the Torcaso case is more than mere "dicta," here is a memorandum prepared "[a]t the request of the staff of the Committee on Education and Labor” by Congressman John B. Conlan.

This part is my opinion:
Since Secular humanism is a religion, the attempt to make it the sole expression allowed on a Federal level is an establishment of religion and therefore unconstitutional.

Second, if your emphasis is focused on the fact that this amendment only mentions Congress, then consider what this would mean. That would mean that the president (or any other federal official), not being a member of Congress, could either establish or prohibit religion as he sees fit. Obviously, the Supreme Court didn't like this possibility and didn't believe, based on research into the founders' intent, that this was intended; so they read the provision to include any federal official. Hence, no federal official (or the federal government) can establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

However they can be part of and publically acknowledge a religion, even use their religion as a moral guide in setting law (Free Excercise).

Then, in the 1860's, the Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment. I give you that the exact meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is hard to figure out. However, after a period of years where the Court interpreted much of the 14th Amendment to be meaningless in order to prevent equal rights to African-americans, the court eventually ruled that the 14th Amendment, by specifically preventing the States from infringing on the rights of private persons, incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States. It is for this reason that States (or its subsidiary bodies) can't establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. It is also the reason that the States can't prevent free exercise of speech, must provide trial by jury, and must obtain a warrant to search your house. These amendments (an the Supreme Court decisions interpreting them) go out of their way to protect the private individual from the tyrannical efforts of their governments - Federal and State.

There are good (maybe not good, but perhaps decent) arguments that the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be shown. However, if you are worried about the tyrannical efforts of government, this is not an argument that you want to take.

What they are worried about is the tyrannical application of the power of the Judiciary. To take and create secular humanism as the religion of the US is simply unconstitutional, and is clearly a violation of the powers of the Judiciary.

 

[ReillyT]

Wrong. Religion is the means through which we attempt to understand that which is transcendant - that which exists eternally, outside ourselves. If secularists find transcendance in "the politics of meaning", or a worldly utopia, it is still very much their religion - and it's not a very tolerant one, either, as we're finding.[/QUOTE}

This isn't worth arguing about. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

But, this problem was addressed by the framers when they granted - to Congress and Congress alone - the power to enact laws. It seems to me that it is the usurpation of the separation of powers that's getting us into all this trouble.[/QUOTE}

Perhaps you are right about whether, under your interpretation, the president could establish a religion by fiat. I really don't know. The president couldn't arrest persons for not abiding by his religion if there weren't a provision in the code allowing it, but the executive does have a great deal of discretion in hiring in the executive branch, prosecutorial discretion, adminstration of public funds through executive agencies. Absent a law to the contrary, a president could tailor his executive discretion to adherents (or states) that practice or subscribe to his established religion. That could be a very powerful means to reward his adherents and "punish" those who disregard him.

Do you mean to say, then, that the Court took it upon itself to circumvent the deliberately designed devolutionary flow of power outlined in the Constitution, in interpreting the 14th Amendment?

I think that the Court felt it was abiding by the legislative intent of the drafters of the amendment, in a way that protected individuals against the caprice and injustice of State governments. They were attempting to protect individuals in their efforts. They really had to interpret the Amendment in some way. The 14th Amendment really isn't clear.

Text:
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.

I think they made the only permissible interpretation. The amendment (now a part of the Constitution that had to be applied) is clearly designed to abridge the authority of the States and preserve the "privileges and immunities" of citizens of the U.S. (i.e., freedom of religion, 4th and 6th amendment rights to protect persons against abitrary arrest and confinement, etc.) against those States. The Court did first ignore this section because it would have meant equal rights for African-Americans (these are the cases in which this came up), but later used the Equal Protection clause to fulfill the intent of the Amendment for all citizens.

If you are upset that the Court didn't pay proper credence to the "deliberately designed devolutionary flow of power outlined in the Constitution," then you would be asking the Court to ignore the text of the Amendment in favor of an interpretation of the founders' overall intent. That would be the same "judicial activism" that so many people get pissy about.

This amendment fulfills the protections of U.S. citizens against the States. Without this, the Bill of Rights would not apply to the States and they could easily trample on rights we today take for granted.

Sorry my posts are so long and involved. This can be complicated stuff.

 

[ReillyT]

I agree, her free speech is protected. Let us also have a voucher system so students can shop for the school of his/her choice, then we'll see how her madrassa functions. she should have the right to discuss her faith with the class. So do the christian teachers. Can YOU handle it?

I am undecided about voucher systems because I am not sure that they would provide the best educational opportunities for our students. (another post) However, if we did employ a voucher system and parents chose to send their students to religous schools, I have no problem with this sort of activity in those schools. Parents can always choose another school to send their children to.

 

[ReillyT]

What they are worried about is the tyrannical application of the power of the Judiciary. To take and create secular humanism as the religion of the US is simply unconstitutional, and is clearly a violation of the powers of the Judiciary.

I wonder what Secular Humanists believe. It sounds like a group with a belief about the "transcendental" nature of human life (to use Musicman's phrase). I tend to think of secularists as atheists, who might not have any view of the transcendental, but who (some of them) don't believe in a transcendental at all.

However, your reasoning is flawed even if secular beliefs are a religion (IMO). The government cannot prohibit any religion. It can't discriminate against Christians, jews, atheists, humanists, etc.

It also can't endorse any religion (under current law and with some relatively small exceptions) Hence, it can't have a banner above a judicial bench listing the ten commandments, quoting the Koran, or stating "There is no god but man. Be Secular." It can't promote anything. It can't say anything about any religion (including secularism if you believe that is a religion). That doesn't mean by not promoting religion it is promoting secularism any more than it means that by not promoting religion it is promoting religion. It promotes nothing, but lets individuals believe whatever they see fit.

 

[musicman]

ReillyT:

No apology necessary; these are, indeed, knotty issues.

While I am obviously not a legal scholar, I can see that the judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been, and remains, problematic in regard to the separation of powers. Clearly, much work remains to be done.

Its most harmful legacy appears to be an "activist" judiciary which is overly, and dangerously fond of overstepping its bounds. About this, I can assure you, I and many other Americans are going to remain "pissy". This is tyranny we're playing around with.

 

[ReillyT]

ReillyT:

No apology necessary; these are, indeed, knotty issues.

While I am obviously not a legal scholar, I can see that the judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been, and remains, problematic in regard to the separation of powers. Clearly, much work remains to be done.

Its most harmful legacy appears to be an "activist" judiciary which is overly, and dangerously fond of overstepping its bounds. About this, I can assure you, I and many other Americans are going to remain "pissy". This is tyranny we're playing around with.

I shouldn't have used the word "pissy." If you really are concerned that the Courts are ignoring the law as it was written just to apply their own views in the cloak of legality, that is something to be concerned about. I just think that interpretation is required for our laws, and that judicial activism is merely a phrase that is tossed about whenever we as individuals disagree with the interpretation. It is inevitable because we write our laws so succintly. If we were in Europe, where laws are very long and very complicated, there would be little need for interpretation, but then normal persons would have to spend a great deal of time trying to parse out the meanings of the laws and often the laws' letter would be preserved but their spirit would be lost through inartful legislative drafting.

 

[musicman]

I wonder what Secular Humanists believe. It sounds like a group with a belief about the "transcendental" nature of human life (to use Musicman's phrase). I tend to think of secularists as atheists, who might not have any view of the transcendental, but who (some of them) don't believe in a transcendental at all.

However, your reasoning is flawed even if secular beliefs are a religion (IMO). The government cannot prohibit any religion. It can't discriminate against Christians, jews, atheists, humanists, etc.

It also can't endorse any religion (under current law and with some relatively small exceptions) Hence, it can't have a banner above a judicial bench listing the ten commandments, quoting the Koran, or stating "There is no god but man. Be Secular." It can't promote anything. It can't say anything about any religion (including secularism if you believe that is a religion). That doesn't mean by not promoting religion it is promoting secularism any more than it means that by not promoting religion it is promoting religion. It promotes nothing, but lets individuals believe whatever they see fit.

But it is the secularists who are pushing so relentlessly to obliterate all traces of any religion but their own from the public arena. These are matters that are supposed to be decided at the community level, but secular humanism would never thrive in an atmosphere where discourse is actually influenced by the will of the people. Enter the courts. This is elitism. This is tyranny.

 

[ReillyT]

But it is the secularists who are pushing so relentlessly to obliterate all traces of any religion but their own from the public arena. These are matters that are supposed to be decided at the community level, but secular humanism would never thrive in an atmosphere where discourse is actually influenced by the will of the people. Enter the courts. This is elitism. This is tyranny.

That is somewhere else where I disagree. Secularists are pushing to push elements of religious life out of the governmental discourse, but I don't think that means they are promoting their belief in the way that religious symbols promote certain religious beliefs. If secularists wanted to put up monuments stating that there is no religion and that the only true belief is the belief in man (i.e. banner above the judicial bench stating "There is no god. Believe in man alone"), then I might agree with you. However, they just want there to be no reference to any belief about the "transcendental nature" of humans at all. I don't think that the absence of demonstrated religion in governmental places is the same as endorsement of secularism.

 

[no1tovote4]

I wonder what Secular Humanists believe. It sounds like a group with a belief about the "transcendental" nature of human life (to use Musicman's phrase). I tend to think of secularists as atheists, who might not have any view of the transcendental, but who (some of them) don't believe in a transcendental at all.

However, your reasoning is flawed even if secular beliefs are a religion (IMO). The government cannot prohibit any religion. It can't discriminate against Christians, jews, atheists, humanists, etc.

It also can't endorse any religion (under current law and with some relatively small exceptions) Hence, it can't have a banner above a judicial bench listing the ten commandments, quoting the Koran, or stating "There is no god but man. Be Secular." It can't promote anything. It can't say anything about any religion (including secularism if you believe that is a religion). That doesn't mean by not promoting religion it is promoting secularism any more than it means that by not promoting religion it is promoting religion. It promotes nothing, but lets individuals believe whatever they see fit.

The same can be said of Buddhists and other religions. Buddhism does not deal with the existence of God, some believe and some do not just as with Secular Humanism. To simply say that it is okay to take away all public expression, including that which is historically significant such as the Ten Commandments, is bowing to secular humanism and a clear attempt at establishing that religion as the standard and only right expression in public society. The SCOTUS has already ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion so that argument is moot and the attempt to continue in an argument that it is not is only philosophical as per the ruling from the SCOTUS it is and therefore legally must be treated as such.

A judge is allowed as much free expression as you are allowed, just as the President and Congressional Members are and Senators. To attempt to remove from them the right of Free Expression granted by the Constitution is an attempt to end-run the Constitution and establish Secular Humanism as the only expression allowed to Public officials. It is a clear violation of their right to free speech. I would agree with you if we were talking about a judge that ruled that because of the Adultery Commandment a person should be jailed regardless of the actual law, but this isn't the case.

The attempt here IMO is to remove from the Public the right to the free expression of religion. The argument should be to allow other historical text regarding religions, not to remove from the public the right to free expression.

 

[musicman]

That is somewhere else where I disagree. Secularists are pushing to push elements of religious life out of the governmental discourse, but I don't think that means they are promoting their belief in the way that religious symbols promote certain religious beliefs. If secularists wanted to put up monuments stating that there is no religion and that the only true belief is the belief in man (i.e. banner above the judicial bench stating "There is no god. Believe in man alone"), then I might agree with you. However, they just want there to be no reference to any belief about the "transcendental nature" of humans at all. I don't think that the absence of demonstrated religion in governmental places is the same as endorsement of secularism.

Hell, man - they don't NEED symbols! The SUBSTANCE of their religion is being written into the fabric of American life - against the wishes of the majority of Americans, I might add - a little more every day. My unabashed dictionary defines this as "tyranny".

 

[ReillyT]

The same can be said of Buddhists and other religions. Buddhism does not deal with the existence of God, some believe and some do not just as with Secular Humanism. To simply say that it is okay to take away all public expression, including that which is historically significant such as the Ten Commandments, is bowing to secular humanism and a clear attempt at establishing that religion as the standard and only right expression in public society. The SCOTUS has already ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion so that argument is moot and the attempt to continue in an argument that it is not is only philosophical as per the ruling from the SCOTUS it is and therefore legally must be treated as such.

Once again, I disagree that the absence of religion is the same as promoting secularism. The banner stating "There is no god but man. Be secular." would be promoting secularism, but the absence of any statement about religious belief (or the lack thereof) doesn't promote anything.

A judge is allowed as much free expression as you are allowed, just as the President and Congressional Members are and Senators. To attempt to remove from them the right of Free Expression granted by the Constitution is an attempt to end-run the Constitution and establish Secular Humanism as the only expression allowed to Public officials. It is a clear violation of their right to free speech. I would agree with you if we were talking about a judge that ruled that because of the Adultery Commandment a person should be jailed regardless of the actual law, but this isn't the case.

A judge in his private capacity can, of course, practice his religious beliefs any way he sees fit. However, a judge in his role as a judge isn't allowed to promote his religious beliefs, or any religious beliefs. (The same applies Congress as a whole, which might be predominantly Christian, but can't endorse the Christian religion as a body). A judge at home can refuse to allow jews over his doorstep. This is protected by the First Amendment. A judge in his public role cannot treat anyone differently based on religious belief because a judge in his public role is a representative of the government, not just a private person. The reason that this issue is especially thorny with judges is because they are supposed to be completely impartial, and allowing them to demonstrate their religious beliefs in their public role undermines the reliability of the judicial process to minorities or persons whose beliefs are inconstitent with the judges.[/QUOTE]

The attempt here IMO is to remove from the Public the right to the free expression of religion. The argument should be to allow other historical text regarding religions, not to remove from the public the right to free expression.

Not from the public, just the government. Members of the public, acting as private individuals, can continue to belief and espouse whatever they want, even in public, open places. The question of whether the Ten Commandments should be allowed as a historical text is a different question, based not on the religious nature of the document, but on its historical significance. There are arguments both ways on that, and this is what the USSC is currently considering.

However, here I agree with Justice Scalia during oral arguments in the recent case, who said it was silly too pretend that when you place the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse, it has a predominantly historical significance. It is obviously too important a religious document to have a predominantly historical significance. (I do disagree with Scalia on what this means however.)

 

[ReillyT]

Hell, man - they don't NEED symbols! The SUBSTANCE of their religion is being written into the fabric of American life - against the wishes of the majority of Americans, I might add - a little more every day. My unabashed dictionary defines this as "tyranny".

If it is written on the fabric of American life through their outspoken belief, prevailing and changing attitudes towards religion, the media, or any other non-governmental forum, that is fine. If they can convince the American people to believe in secularism, or if they can persuade the media to promote secularism, that is permissible. Religious people can (and attempt to) do the same thing vis-a-vis the media, hollywood, etc. The First Amendment doesn't and can't abridge the rights of people to espouse their beliefs through public, non-governmental means. The government, however, should promote nothing (IMO).

 

[musicman]

If it is written on the fabric of American life through their outspoken belief, prevailing and changing attitudes towards religion, the media, or any other non-governmental forum, that is fine. If they can convince the American people to believe in secularism, or if they can persuade the media to promote secularism, that is permissible. Religious people can (and attempt to) do the same thing vis-a-vis the media, hollywood, etc. The First Amendment doesn't and can't abridge the rights of people to espouse their beliefs through public, non-governmental means. The government, however, should promote nothing (IMO).

So, how would you rate the "hands-off" attitude of, say, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? No social engineering going on there, huh?

 

[ReillyT]

Coincidentally, this is where I think that debates about religion should be held. Chatrooms, in the media, and over dinner in homes across the country - not in the halls of Congress, and not on the courthouse steps. There is nothing more private than one's religious beliefs, and this is a discussion that should be held privately, or in public forums of discourse, i.e., the media, talk shows, in parks, etc. This, I think, is the safest and most effective means of talking about religion.

 

[ReillyT]

So, how would you rate the "hands-off" attitude of, say, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? No social engineering going on there, huh?

I didn't say hands-off. I think it is permissible for the courts to place religion back into the private or open-public sphere. I think that is where the discussion of religion should take place - not with respect to the government at all. I think it is dangerous to mix government and religion. Things can get out of hand and this is where I worry about tyranny. As long as the government doesn't tell me what religion is the right religion, doesn't tell me what religion to practice, and doesn't interfere with my ability to practice my religion, either privately, or in the an open-public forum, I will feel better.

 

[no1tovote4]

Once again, I disagree that the absence of religion is the same as promoting secularism. The banner stating "There is no god but man. Be secular." would be promoting secularism, but the absence of any statement about religious belief (or the lack thereof) doesn't promote anything.

Taking from the Public the right of expression however does establish a standard. In order to remove the historical documentation as ornaments on a public building it is necessary to rule that they are specifically of a religious content and therefore not allowed specifically because they are religious even though the expression of the historical document does not establish a religion. If the congress made a law restricting the public to only secular expression it would be unconstitutional, just as with the Judiciary. By attempting to limit the Government (the same as the Public) to Secular expression it is once again an end-run at the Free Expression part of the 1st Amendment.

The Public as a whole (the same as the Government) has a right to free expression, just as you do on a personal level. The Right of Free Expression is inclusive not exclusive. The argument should be to add other religious documents in the historical context rather than to exclude other documents or art and only to allow Secular Expression from the Public at large or if you prefer you can call it the Government rather than the Public. By making it the only legal expression by the Public, they will establish Secularism as the religion of the land.

A judge in his private capacity can, of course, practice his religious beliefs any way he sees fit. However, a judge in his role as a judge isn't allowed to promote his religious beliefs, or any religious beliefs. (The same applies Congress as a whole, which might be predominantly Christian, but can't endorse the Christian religion as a body). A judge at home can refuse to allow jews over his doorstep. This is protected by the First Amendment. A judge in his public role cannot treat anyone differently based on religious belief because a judge in his public role is a representative of the government, not just a private person. The reason that this issue is especially thorny with judges is because they are supposed to be completely impartial, and allowing them to demonstrate their religious beliefs in their public role undermines the reliability of the judicial process to minorities or persons whose beliefs are inconstitent with the judges.

As I said, if a judge made a ruling based on his beliefs rather than on the law I would agree with you. He does have the right to express his belief though even in a public capacity. They can wear a "Ten Commandment" pin on their lapel if they so wish, etc. Often you will even hear a judge comment on how morally reprehensible he may think something is even while he is letting the person free because it was not against the law, he/she has that right. They can even base that judgement on their religious beliefs, they just cannot use them to rule against the law, if they do they have ovestepped their bounds. Just as they would if they only allowed Secularism as the sole legal expression from the Public.

Not from the public, just the government. Members of the public, acting as private individuals, can continue to belief and espouse whatever they want, even in public, open places. The question of whether the Ten Commandments should be allowed as a historical text is a different question, based not on the religious nature of the document, but on its historical significance. There are arguments both ways on that, and this is what the USSC is currently considering.

The Public, in the sense that I mention them, is the Government. One society, united by the common central Federal Government, we as a whole also have the right to free expression and as I mentioned before that particular right is Inclusive and not Exclusive. I fully understand that, however we have progressed our argument beyond that particular perspective and advanced to the Free Expression clause in the 1st Amendment and are now discussing whethe the Public as a whole has the Right to Free Expression and whether that particular Right would be able to exclude the expression of certain religions while only supporting one particular religion by the very exclusion.

However, here I agree with Justice Scalia during oral arguments in the recent case, who said it was silly too(sic) pretend that when you place the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse, it has a predominantly historical significance. It is obviously too important a religious document to have a predominantly historical significance. (I do disagree with Scalia on what this means however.)

Regardless of whether it is "predominantly" historical or not, to ignore the historical significance is removing from it meaning that it clearly has within the society. Even I, as a Buddhist, can clearly see that there is definitely historical significance to the Ten Commandments. I would put forward that there is also historical significance to what Buddhists have added and that their documents should be included, rather than the Ten Commandments excluded, from Public Expression.

 

[musicman]

I didn't say hands-off. I think it is permissible for the courts to place religion back into the private or open-public sphere. I think that is where the discussion of religion should take place - not with respect to the government at all. I think it is dangerous to mix government and religion. Things can get out of hand and this is where I worry about tyranny. As long as the government doesn't tell me what religion is the right religion, doesn't tell me what religion to practice, and doesn't interfere with my ability to practice my religion, either privately, or in the an open-public forum, I will feel better.

But, my government is telling me PRECISELY that, in a voice that becomes more strident and insistent every day.

 

[ReillyT]

Taking from the Public the right of expression however does establish a standard. In order to remove the historical documentation as ornaments on a public building it is necessary to rule that they are specifically of a religious content and therefore not allowed specifically because they are religious even though the expression of the historical document does not establish a religion. If the congress made a law restricting the public to only secular expression it would be unconstitutional, just as with the Judiciary. By attempting to limit the Government (the same as the Public) to Secular expression it is once again an end-run at the Free Expression part of the 1st Amendment.

The public has the right to express itself in any open-public forum - the press, through a parade, a march, in the park, etc. The right to free expression doesn't mean that the public as a whole can push its majority view on the minority in government no matter what percentage of the public feels that way. The first amendment doesn't just protect the rights of people to express themselves, it protects minority beliefs from oppression by majority beliefs. You're right, if the law was that only secular expression was allowed, that would be impermissible. However, once again, the banner over the judge's bench would be a promotion of secular belief, the absence of any expression about the ends of human life or endeavor (i.e., transcendental beliefs) is merely a lack of government discussion of this topic.

The Public as a whole (the same as the Government) has a right to free expression, just as you do on a personal level. The Right of Free Expression is inclusive not exclusive. The argument should be to add other religious documents in the historical context rather than to exclude other documents or art and only to allow Secular Expression from the Public at large or if you prefer you can call it the Government rather than the Public. By making it the only legal expression by the Public, they will establish Secularism as the religion of the land.

Just absolutely, completely and utterly wrong. The "Public as a whole (the same as the government)" does not have the same right to free expression as individuals. The government cannot endorse or establish a religion and the cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, while a person can establish a religion and can prevent people outside his religion from walking into his house. That is the essence of the First Amendment. If you say that the government is the same as the Public and that the public is the same as the private, and that all three are equally given the right to practice their religion, the the First Amendment doesn't mean anything. The government cannot practice religion, it can't endorse it, and it can't prohibit you from exercising it.

As I said, if a judge made a ruling based on his beliefs rather than on the law I would agree with you. He does have the right to express his belief though even in a public capacity. They can wear a "Ten Commandment" pin on their lapel if they so wish, etc. Often you will even hear a judge comment on how morally reprehensible he may think something is even while he is letting the person fee because it was not against the law, he/she has that right. They can even base that judgement on their religious beliefs, they just cannot use them to rule against the law, if they do they have ovestepped their bounds. Just as they would if they only allowed Secularism as the sole legal expression from the Public..

I actually don't know if a judge can where a Ten Commandment pin. There is a grey area in that jduges do discuss values and it is unclear where these values come from. That is a function of the fact that people hold values, based upon a number of sources. I agree that it is possible for a person to follow the law even where it contradicts their religious beliefs. However, in order to demonstrate the impartiality of the judiciary, it has been held that clear expressions of religious beliefs are forbidden. I think this is a good thing, because I wouldn't want a Mulsim judge with a posting of Islamic law around his courthouse judging me. Even if he were going to be fair, I would question his impartiality, and that is bad for the judiciary.

The Public, in the sense that I mention them, is the Government. One society, united by the common central Federal Government, we as a whole also have the right to free expression and as I mentioned before that particular right is Inclusive and not Exclusive. I fully understand that, however we have progressed our argument beyond that particular perspective and advanced to the Free Expression clause in the 1st Amendment and are now discussing whethe the Public as a whole has the Right to Free Expression and whether that particular Right would be able to exclude the expression of certain religions while only supporting one particular religion by the very exclusion.


Regardless of whether it is "predominantly" historical or not, to ignore the historical significance is removing from it meaning that it clearly has within the society. Even I, as a Buddhist, can clearly see that there is definitely historical significance to the Ten Commandments. I would put forward that there is also historical significance to what Buddhists have added and that their documents should be included, rather than the Ten Commandments excluded, from Public Expression.

I once again think you are utterly misinformed and mistaken if you think that the First Amendment protects the government's exercise of religion. It was supposed to have exactly the opposite purpose. As to the historical argument, sure, the Ten Commandments have a historical significance. So, by that measure do many other religious documents. That doesn't take away from their religious connotations. The question of whether their religious or historic connotations determine whether they are allowed or not is currently being debated. However, both the Koran and the Ten Commandments have religious purposes and historical significance. If someone were to place a monument to the Koran in front of the court steps, I would question that it was placed their for historical reasons - which would probably just be sham reasons to place a religious symbol where they wanted it. I see no reason not to hold the Ten Commandments to the same inquiry.