OK Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down

[Town Heretic]

Perhaps our conservative friends could provide examples of nations with an official state-religion that didn't experience strife and turmoil.

The Holy See?

Or, perhaps you can name a nation without an official state religion (though I haven't read anyone here arguing for it) that hasn't experienced strife and turmoil.

 

[jgarden]

The Holy See?

Or, perhaps you can name a nation without an official state religion (though I haven't read anyone here arguing for it) that hasn't experienced strife and turmoil.

The history of the popes in Rome has been filled with strife. Just in the last 150 years -

- the popes didn't reside inside Vatican City prior to 1870, but in the Quirinal Palace since 1583 and the Lateran Palace prior to that

- in 1870, the Papal forces were defeated and Rome was captured by the Piedmont-led forces that unified Italy and the Pope restricted to the confines of Vatican City

- the Quirinal Palace now became the residence of the King of Italy, the Papal States confiscated and the Holy See tolerated - as long as the Pope was content to remain within Vatican City

- Pope Pius IX (1846–78), the last ruler of the Papal States, was referred to as a "prisoner in the Vatican"

- from 1861 and 1929 the status of the Pope was referred to as the "Roman Question," with the successive popes refusing to recognize the Italian king's right to rule in Rome and their inability to leave the Vatican compound

- Lateran Treaty (1929) had the Holy See (Pope Pius XI), the King of Italy (King Victor Emmanuel III) and Italian government (Benito Mussolini) formally recognize Vatican City as an independent state and reaffirmed the special status of Catholicism in Italy

 

[PureX]

Looked at another way, it's about context. A monument containing the Ten Commandments isn't inherently problematic.

Exactly, because the monuments themselves are not unconstitutional. It's the implication of advocacy on behalf of the government that is unconstitutional. We are free to put up religious monuments, shout out prayers, roll in the dirt wearing sackcloth and ashes, whatever ... but not as a demonstration of the advocacy of government.

And let's be honest about this, it is the intent to imply the advocacy of government that is motivating these ongoing attempts at placing these religious monuments in public buildings and on public property. There simply is NO OTHER REASON to do it.

 

[Town Heretic]

The history of the popes in Rome has been filled with strife. Just in the last 150 years -

One shoe of two, or that was my implied defense/in the alternative criticism. No government, however situated, is free of it. The Holy See for quite some time, so if you mean in the moment there you are. If you don't it's not rally a criticism of religion and government, as stated, since it's rather universal. :cheers:

 

[rexlunae]

First, to straighten the narrative a bit it's unquestionably and overwhelmingly true that the nation was founded and defended by Christians to the near exclusion of all others, those others constituting, for generations, a wafer thin percentage of the remaining.

That may be true in terms of bulk head-count. But secularists of various stripes, including those that held or may have held religious views of their own were indispensable in the creation of the nation. Thomas Paine, the man who coined the term "The United States of America", was a deist by his own description. Thomas Jefferson rejected miracles, the supernatural, and the deity of Christ, though he may have called himself a Christian at times, and was accused of being an infidel during his political career. George Washington made no public display of religion, and extolled the importance of it being a private matter. So, if you throw out the secular history of the United States, you may not have a United States at all.

And those Christians, descendants of the 30 Years War and more immediate persecution rooted in empowered religion made a wise choice to give individual conscience its head and to restrict the integration of church and state to the individual level.

Yes, the 30 Years War had a great deal of influence on the thinking of the Founders. As did the English Civil War, and various other European conflicts regarding religion and its combination with the state. But so did the Enlightenment, and its challenges to Christianity.

Two responses. First, I think the point is to honor and there's no inherent harm in it.

I think you're mistaken. The monument sat without obvious context beyond the fact that it was on the capital grounds, to the exclusion of all other similar doctrines. If the intent was to honor something particular, what was it honoring? No, it was a statement of supremacy.

Secondly, a monument never did more than reflect a thing. It cannot and will not empower or deny any existing group and will not and has not voided a single right.

In this case, it reflected the Oklahoma legislature's desire to endorse Christianity. And while it may be true that the real problem is the fact that the legislature has that desire in the first place, it is also true that icons are one means of preserving those traditions. There's a reason that South Carolina insisted on flying a Confederate battle flag on their capital grounds, and not merely preserving one in a museum, by way of example.

Are we really to the point where those minorities enjoying the full fruits of personal liberty are fearful of even the public recognition of the majority in this particular? If so I think the wrong lesson was learned by the secularization.

There's a long history of governments using Christian doctrine to control the lives of those who don't partake of it, including in the United States. That history extends to the present day, and is exhibited by various members of this forum.

Where I'd say if you honestly believe that you're simply mistaken in a way that our forefathers never were. They had some fairly strong religious differences among them, but none felt that secularization required anything like the fearful response to a monument on public land, many of which were erected by those very men.

I'm not sure what monuments you're referring to. Even today, there aren't a lot of national monuments of an explicitly religious nature, nor were there ever, really. There are some thoughts with a religious tone on the Lincoln memorial, but those have a meaningful historical context worth preserving. Perhaps the Founders were better at nipping this sort of thing in the bud than present-day Oklahoma.

I don't believe you. I don't believe for a moment you find the prohibition against murder foolish, or against theft or false witness.

I think there's little value in them being carved on a stone and handed as a holy writ, as if we couldn't figure those out on our own, and in a great deal more detail.

Adultery seem like a good idea?

It doesn't seem like a crime. And anyway, adultery isn't forbidden by the text on the monument. "Coveting" is, but that's hardly the same thing.

So your rhetoric has, at its root, a not dissimilar problem evidenced in the general objection, an overly broad approach and want of particular consideration.

Well, you could start at the top, if you wanted to know my objections in detail. I'd think that they would be largely obvious. You've picked out three that are the least odious to me, but that's a minority, and listed near the bottom.

But a monument you can't ignore.

Why should I ignore it?

The thing is, if you could declare a thing into power TOL would long ago have become uniformly one thing on the strength of the prevailing winds. And if it can't be established in an internet forum with a one-sided distribution of power...

What governments declare tends to have real-world implications. And why eat away at the separation wall for the sake of this?

Here's one implication:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 INT/hB/HB1380 INT.PDF

Apparently, Oklahoma was contemplating changing their state's history curriculum to include instruction on the Ten Commandments, as well as several Christian sermons. Which makes sense, in a Christian state, as some Oklahomans clearly want it to be, but it makes little sense in a secular state.

Or maybe people could stop creating a hostility that not only isn't evidenced in our compact, but given the protections and freedoms afforded even some of the broadly decried participants, maybe we could all relax a bit and let a reasonable, case by case examination of a thing be our approach. Set a plaque to constrain the notice if you're honestly worried that the people who have gone out of their way to ensure your personal liberty have suddenly decided to undermine it, against the tide of law and every other serious indicator.

What would the plaque say? "This endorsement of religion is in no way an endorsement of religion."?

The way to meet Constitutional muster would be to place it in a context that could serve some legitimate secular purpose. It's hard to see how that could be done with a monument, signifying no particular historical fact or event, divorced of any competing or complementary similar ideas. In this way, the Satanists actually gave cover to the monument by putting up a display of Baphomet. http://kfor.com/2015/07/02/satanic-...baphomet-statue-after-oklahoma-courts-ruling/

But the Oklahoma Supreme Court apparently has ruled that that isn't sufficient under the state's constitution.

It's irrational to believe you're being attacked because you suspect a thing or the motivation of the people behind it.

That isn't really true. There's nothing irrational about acting on a well-founded suspicion, even if it falls short of proof. And there's an abundance of reason to suspect that Oklahoma might be a little hostile to non-Christian viewpoints.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...riage-benefits-to-national-guard-members.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...bill-restricting-marriage-to-people-of-faith/
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/16/oklahoma-ban-on-sharia-law-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules/

Rather, they have the ability to voice their complaints and stand equal before the law precisely and singularly because the majority they now suspect to the point of irrational overreach or whom they dislike in their difference sufficiently to use the claim to attempt to constrain as much as and wherever possible have set that as their birthright.

And shouldn't they just be grateful, then, that the beneficent majority has deigned to permit them a voice, they uppity savages? How dare they question our dispensation of justice, when we might just as soon remove their voice as listen to it?

I don't think you mean that, because I believe you are better than that argument. But it's essentially a textbook tactic for marginalization.

 

[bybee]

WINDMILLS!WINDMILLS!WINDMILLS! Surrounded by windmills, and he shall destroy all that is of value as he seeks to destroy them....

 

[Town Heretic]

That may be true in terms of bulk head-count. But secularists of various stripes, including those that held or may have held religious views of their own were indispensable in the creation of the nation. Thomas Paine, the man who coined the term "The United States of America", was a deist by his own description. Thomas Jefferson rejected miracles, the supernatural, and the deity of Christ, though he may have called himself a Christian at times, and was accused of being an infidel during his political career. George Washington made no public display of religion, and extolled the importance of it being a private matter. So, if you throw out the secular history of the United States, you may not have a United States at all.

And they're celebrated, most of them with monuments that weren't given to many of the Christians who comprised the larger portion of those who established the nation. See? We have monuments in our capital to deists.

Yes, the 30 Years War had a great deal of influence on the thinking of the Founders. As did the English Civil War, and various other European conflicts regarding religion and its combination with the state. But so did the Enlightenment, and its challenges to Christianity.

This wasn't France, but sure.

I think you're mistaken. The monument sat without obvious context beyond the fact that it was on the capital grounds, to the exclusion of all other similar doctrines.

So it wasn't sitting in front of a synagog or in the shadow of a church steeple. The context can be the where then, can't it. Now this wasn't a cross or a crescent, a smiling Buddha or an imposing Shiva. The Ten Commandments don't simply belong to one religion and their impact on law, especially Western law is worthy of notice.

If the intent was to honor something particular, what was it honoring? No, it was a statement of supremacy.

Show me that outside of the contempt, or fear, or suspicion of people leveling the criticism. Again, it isn't a cross, it's a different instrument.

In this case, it reflected the Oklahoma legislature's desire to endorse Christianity.

Then a cross would have been the instrument for that, not a wellspring of law for Judaism and later institutions of government formed by Christianity.

And while it may be true that the real problem is the fact that the legislature has that desire in the first place, it is also true that icons are one means of preserving those traditions. There's a reason that South Carolina insisted on flying a Confederate battle flag on their capital grounds, and not merely preserving one in a museum, by way of example.

Symbols can be powerfully important. Which is why most places no longer fly that Confederate flag. This symbol is a bit different, as many are and why the question has to or should be a consideration on a case by case basis and not by some near Pavlovian assumption.

There's a long history of governments using Christian doctrine to control the lives of those who don't partake of it, including in the United States. That history extends to the present day, and is exhibited by various members of this forum.

That's just a crazy overreach. Rather, there's a history of mostly Christian communities shaping themselves accordingly. But this isn't about some historical milestone, it's about whether in safeguarding the body politic from the potential of a divisive and destructive wedding of state with a singular religious outlook we are left with an equally singular and divisive alternative.

I don't believe it, mistrust one size fits all answers to complicated human problems and desires where those impacted are anything but single-minded. Or, if the republic can be brought low by a monument to the Ten Commandments we may have more important problems than statuary.

I'm not sure what monuments you're referring to. Even today, there aren't a lot of national monuments of an explicitly religious nature, nor were there ever, really. There are some thoughts with a religious tone on the Lincoln memorial, but those have a meaningful historical context worth preserving. Perhaps the Founders were better at nipping this sort of thing in the bud than present-day Oklahoma.

Perhaps you need to visit Washington and read some of the inscriptions, like Laus Deo on the Washington monument, visit the S. Ct. building, the National Archives, Congress, take a visit to the White House, where you'll find this inscription facing the state dining room, “I pray Heaven to Bestow the Best of Blessings on THIS HOUSE and on All that shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under this Roof.” The Lincoln memorial, the facade of Union Station...you can find literal scripture and openly displayed Bibles in the places of power of our government. And yet you, without sharing that faith, have never in the history of man had your right to conscience so devotedly protected.

And the men who managed that weren't atheists. They were mostly Christian.

I think there's little value in them being carved on a stone and handed as a holy writ, as if we couldn't figure those out on our own, and in a great deal more detail.

If there's little value there's less threat. Holy writ is how they were handed to man. How you see them is your business. Whether or not we could "figure them out and more", whether that's reasonable or arrogant, is also left to the individual to decide.

It doesn't seem like a crime. And anyway, adultery isn't forbidden by the text on the monument. "Coveting" is, but that's hardly the same thing.

"VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery." Maybe you're being overly broad in your criticism and a bit short in consideration.

Well, you could start at the top, if you wanted to know my objections in detail. I'd think that they would be largely obvious. You've picked out three that are the least odious to me, but that's a minority, and listed near the bottom.

And there it is again. Least odious? If you find a law against murder odious at all you have more problems than a calculus exam. But you don't. I know it and you know it.

Why should I ignore it?

Consistency? lain:

What governments declare tends to have real-world implications. And why eat away at the separation wall for the sake of this?

You aren't eating away at a thing that's been more actively present with us in our relatively long history as a people. This sort of activism is the new, not recognition of guiding principle and faith.

Apparently, Oklahoma was contemplating changing their state's history curriculum to include instruction on the Ten Commandments, as well as several Christian sermons. Which makes sense, in a Christian state, as some Oklahomans clearly want it to be, but it makes little sense in a secular state.

I don't have a problem noting the faith, the driving force of peoples who carved out a nation. Going beyond that is asking for a religious course and should either be a part of a comparative religion class or outside public institutions. Contemplating? Did it pass legislative muster?

What would the plaque say? "This endorsement of religion is in no way an endorsement of religion."?

Nice circle going on there. Again, it's an illustration of law that was greatly impactful on the laws and governments that followed. It isn't a cross or a crescent.

But the Oklahoma Supreme Court apparently has ruled that that isn't sufficient under the state's constitution.

Seems so.

That isn't really true. There's nothing irrational about acting on a well-founded suspicion, even if it falls short of proof.

Well-founded is the problem, running contrary to your self-evident rights. Or, you don't get there from here, reasonably.

And there's an abundance of reason to suspect that Oklahoma might be a little hostile to non-Christian viewpoints.

Hey, I'm completely open to case by case. And where the suspicion is met by supportive evidence, from habit to declared intent, go to. :thumb: Looks like you're advancing a state where gay marriage has been controversial and resisted. True of many, maybe most states. Hostility/suspicion toward Islam? A lot more reasonable than a hostility and suspicion aimed at Christianity, given the track record here, but still stuff and nonsense.

Few Americans of either stripe would attempt to impose their faith on other people by fiat.

And shouldn't they just be grateful, then, that the beneficent majority has deigned to permit them a voice, they uppity savages? How dare they question our dispensation of justice, when we might just as soon remove their voice as listen to it?

I'd say a simple, earned trust untainted with a broadly dismissive brush seems too much for some to muster.

I don't think you mean that, because I believe you are better than that argument. But it's essentially a textbook tactic for marginalization.

Where I don't think you hear the argument over the roar of a bias that is as exclusive in its impact as the thing you believe you're combating, but mostly aren't. And where you are, you'll find people like me standing beside you.

:e4e:

 

[Jose Fly]

In front of a church I'd tend to agree. But on public land? Not so much. Also, which religion? There are two entwined here. Now the easiest way to clear up any potential ambiguity would be a plaque setting out the nature of the recognition.

But they didn't do that. It was nothing more than a stone monument to the 10 Commandments, which are decidedly religious, with no other surrounding context. Thus a reasonable observer would see that as a government endorsement of religion.

I'll give it a look. Again, not every claim is an equal one and it will depend on the actual litmus. If the Ten Commandments is historical recognition the Satanists won't have a leg to stand on.

Doesn't matter....it's already been decided and the monument is gone.

Rather, I don't think recognition is promoting, except in a thing sense that any recognition could be called that and we recognize individuals and groups all the time for extraordinary contributions to the compact.

Recognition of a religion, while denying the same recognition to all other religions is promotion of that religion.

I wrote: "And my response would be that erecting a tomb for the U.S. Grant doesn't entitle every officer to the same recognition, though some may have it conferred."

That's what I'd write if I a) didn't have a counter or b) didn't understand what I was attempting to counter. But it remains true that a monument erected to an individual or a group doesn't establish the same claim by any other. And so, a case by case examination of the point and the merit.

Nope, sorry....still too ridiculous to bother with. If you truly think "Since the government erecting a monument to a religion means it cannot deny the same access to other religions, therefore when the government erects a monument to a person, it cannot deny monuments to every person that's existed", is a valid argument, I'll just let that stand as a testament to the failed status of your position.

No one has a right to a statue or recognition and giving recognition isn't excluding anyone. Now if the litmus was a "Christian's only need apply" you'd have a point, instead of a repetition/declaration of the same toothless assertion you've parroted prior.

Again, you need to get up to speed on the actual facts of this case before trying to debate it. The state of Oklahoma did exclude other religions. Merely erecting the 10 Commandments monument wasn't exclusive; it didn't become so until other religions requested the same access and were denied.

And again, let's not lose sight of the fact that the Oklahoma Constitution specifically prohibits public resources (including property) from directly or indirectly being used to benefit or support any religion in any way.

Same answer. Recognizing Grant isn't "excluding" all other officers who served ably in the Civil War. Excluding is something different.

Again, get the facts of the case first, then debate it.

Sorry, but my education isn't in question, while your ability to meet a rational rebuttal, at this point, is another thing altogether. So unless you actually want to argue that we don't and can't know the world isn't flat or that barium doesn't exist the point is made and you're simply being a poor sport. Science can tell us a great deal. It simply can't tell us everything.

I stated that in science everything is provisional; I supported that statement by linking to multiple scientific sources saying the exact same thing. Take that as you like.

 

[Town Heretic]

But they didn't do that. It was nothing more than a stone monument to the 10 Commandments, which are decidedly religious, with no other surrounding context.

I'd say the setting is contextual, but the plaque would be a better idea and a reasonable compromise, if anyone was interested in that sort of thing.

Thus a reasonable observer would see that as a government endorsement of religion.

Or read the setting and, understanding the U.S. government and states don't officially endorse a particular religion and think something else, but a plaque really wouldn't be a bad idea.

Doesn't matter....it's already been decided and the monument is gone.

If whether the monument was present or removed was the point of this conversation we wouldn't be having it.

Recognition of a religion, while denying the same recognition to all other religions is promotion of that religion.

Again, the denying is all in your noggin absent a proclamation on the point or a habit RELATIVE to a comprehensible standard for evaluation of claims. I think you'd be hard pressed to find something of similar importance in the life of the nation tied to any religion, let alone the two.

Nope, sorry....still too ridiculous to bother with.

It isn't but I'm not surprised you'd make this attempt. The point you aren't and don't rebut is important: just because you find sufficient cause to commemorate an individual, cause or group, it doesn't follow that every individual, cause, or group is similarly situated or that any of them are being denied something they're actually due.

I omit your repetition in lieu of answer. Seems fair.

Again, you need to get up to speed on the actual facts of this case before trying to debate it.

Again, I'm not debating the particular case and never claimed to be. I entered on the larger point illustrated to one degree or another by the case at hand. Or, as I put it a while back:

I haven't read more than a general set out on it. I entered more on the larger point than the particular case, but that was my impression.

Or, see post 183 and the nature of my complaint. You responded to me, on those points, to some extent, if making absurdly unfounded claims about emotionalism, etc.

The state of Oklahoma did exclude other religions. Merely erecting the 10 Commandments monument wasn't exclusive; it didn't become so until other religions requested the same access and were denied.

Answered above and prior in every respect.

And again, let's not lose sight of the fact that the Oklahoma Constitution specifically prohibits public resources (including property) from directly or indirectly being used to benefit or support any religion in any way.

I didn't. On the particulars here I believe I wrote something like, "Seems so" or words to that effect.

Again, get the facts of the case first, then debate it.

Again, I understand why you're trying to retreat to this point, but it was never my point in entering here on a case that's been decided already.

I stated that in science everything is provisional; I supported that statement by linking to multiple scientific sources saying the exact same thing. Take that as you like.

I didn't follow your links, but it really doesn't matter if they supported a claim empirical data refutes. So I recognize your bid to rest on authority and maintain that we categorically understand that the earth isn't flat and that the sun does not, in indisputable fact, revolve around the earth, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[rexlunae]

And they're celebrated, most of them with monuments that weren't given to many of the Christians who comprised the larger portion of those who established the nation. See? We have monuments in our capital to deists.

Yes, but they aren't celebrated, generally, because of their religions.

This wasn't France, but sure.

France took it a step further, but there were clear fingerprints of the same lines of thinking. The suspicion of monarchy and anyone who ruled by Divine Right was a clear sign of that.

So it wasn't sitting in front of a synagog or in the shadow of a church steeple. The context can be the where then, can't it.

The context is sitting in front of the seat of government, on public land, advancing a particular religious agenda. I think that says a lot, and I have a hard time believing that you don't see it.

Now this wasn't a cross or a crescent, a smiling Buddha or an imposing Shiva. The Ten Commandments don't simply belong to one religion and their impact on law, especially Western law is worthy of notice.

It belongs to two religions. That doesn't really make it significantly better or more inclusive.

Show me that outside of the contempt, or fear, or suspicion of people leveling the criticism. Again, it isn't a cross, it's a different instrument.

Then a cross would have been the instrument for that, not a wellspring of law for Judaism and later institutions of government formed by Christianity.

The cross isn't the only icon of Christianity, and it has a clearly religious purpose reading from the very first line. It literally contains instructions for worship. Just because there are (arguably) more blatant ways to violate the First Amendment or the Oklahoma Constitution doesn't mean that it's Kosher.

Symbols can be powerfully important. Which is why most places no longer fly that Confederate flag. This symbol is a bit different, as many are and why the question has to or should be a consideration on a case by case basis and not by some near Pavlovian assumption.

It was decided on a case-by-case basis.
http://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/2015/113332.html

That's just a crazy overreach. Rather, there's a history of mostly Christian communities shaping themselves accordingly. But this isn't about some historical milestone, it's about whether in safeguarding the body politic from the potential of a divisive and destructive wedding of state with a singular religious outlook we are left with an equally singular and divisive alternative.

The problem isn't with wedding the state to a singular religious outlook. The state isn't to be wedded to any religious outlook, even if it can be viewed as somehow multi-faith. Or so says the Supreme Court.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/142
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89 (The origin of the Lemon Test, which requires that a government action server a secular purpose. It's hard to see what that could be here.)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980/80-321 (The Court held that there was no secular purpose in displaying the Ten Commandments.)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1993/93-517 ("Indeed, the very essence of the Establishment Clause is that government should not demonstrate a preference for one religion over another, or religion over non-religion in general.") (Emphasis added)

It is the well-established rule of our compact that it doesn't allow this sort of thing.

I don't believe it, mistrust one size fits all answers to complicated human problems and desires where those impacted are anything but single-minded. Or, if the republic can be brought low by a monument to the Ten Commandments we may have more important problems than statuary.

The Republic need not be threatened to run afoul of the Constitutional separation of church and state.

Perhaps you need to visit Washington and read some of the inscriptions, like Laus Deo on the Washington monument, visit the S. Ct. building, the National Archives, Congress, take a visit to the White House, where you'll find this inscription facing the state dining room, “I pray Heaven to Bestow the Best of Blessings on THIS HOUSE and on All that shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under this Roof.” The Lincoln memorial, the facade of Union Station...you can find literal scripture and openly displayed Bibles in the places of power of our government. And yet you, without sharing that faith, have never in the history of man had your right to conscience so devotedly protected.

I've been, and I've read many of them, though certainly not all. And you won't find me complaining to the display of historically relevant and meaningful religious texts. But that's clearly not what is going on here.

If there's little value there's less threat. Holy writ is how they were handed to man. How you see them is your business. Whether or not we could "figure them out and more", whether that's reasonable or arrogant, is also left to the individual to decide.

I'm telling you how I see them. You're free to differ.

"VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery." Maybe you're being overly broad in your criticism and a bit short in consideration.

Maybe a little short in my reading and my memory. You got me there. I was reading #10 from the monument.

And there it is again. Least odious? If you find a law against murder odious at all you have more problems than a calculus exam. But you don't. I know it and you know it.

I find the version in the Ten Commandments unhelpful. Murder means illicit, killing. It doesn't prohibit all killing. A prohibition on murder without definition is is therefore inherently redundant and unhelpful.

Consistency? lain:

I'm consistently against the promotion of religion with public funds and force. So I think I'm on the right side of that, as far as my own actions go.

You aren't eating away at a thing that's been more actively present with us in our relatively long history as a people. This sort of activism is the new, not recognition of guiding principle and faith.

There's nothing terribly new about it. Perhaps the level of organization is somewhat new, but there have long been cases filed in the courts against the entanglement of religion with the state, much of which actually originates in the Cold War period in the first place.

I don't have a problem noting the faith, the driving force of peoples who carved out a nation. Going beyond that is asking for a religious course and should either be a part of a comparative religion class or outside public institutions. Contemplating? Did it pass legislative muster?

I think there's a reason it was specifically called out in the bill. I don't believe it passed, however.

Nice circle going on there. Again, it's an illustration of law that was greatly impactful on the laws and governments that followed. It isn't a cross or a crescent.

Well, what could the plaque possibly say that would address the fundamental problem with the monument.

Seems so.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that the Oklahoma supreme court isn't just jam-packed with atheists. One of the plaintiffs was apparently a Baptist minister.

Well-founded is the problem, running contrary to your self-evident rights. Or, you don't get there from here, reasonably.

If the existence of a right were enough to demonstrate that those rights are never violated, or even routinely violated, what would the courts be for?

Hey, I'm completely open to case by case. And where the suspicion is met by supportive evidence, from habit to declared intent, go to. :thumb: Looks like you're advancing a state where gay marriage has been controversial and resisted. True of many, maybe most states. Hostility/suspicion toward Islam? A lot more reasonable than a hostility and suspicion aimed at Christianity, given the track record here, but still stuff and nonsense.

It's not suspicion aimed at all of Christendom. It's a section, that hasn't gone away, but I that represents a politically-active minority.

Few Americans of either stripe would attempt to impose their faith on other people by fiat.

Then why does it keep happening?

I'd say a simple, earned trust untainted with a broadly dismissive brush seems too much for some to muster.

The broad brush is actually yours. You can't say that Christians deserve some sort of earned trust without lumping them all together. Yes, there are many Christians in this country with whom I have no beef. Most, in fact. But there are still plenty, and they tend to be the ones who are politically active, who have time and again used their religion to justify curtailing the rights of others, and who foist their beliefs on minorities, all on the grounds of what the majority supposedly prefer. Some of them even called themselves the "Moral Majority".

Where I don't think you hear the argument over the roar of a bias that is as exclusive in its impact as the thing you believe you're combating, but mostly aren't.

I think the bias is mostly your invention. I take Christians on a case-by-case basis, but that doesn't mean there aren't a few trends that can be reasonably extrapolated.

And where you are, you'll find people like me standing beside you.

Perhaps on another day, or another battlefield. Until then...
:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Rex. I think we've said what we can on the subject, so if it's all the same I'm comfortable with your last constituting the last word/argument presented between us. :cheers:

 

[jgarden]

Christianity is not well served by trying to override the Constitution by placing religious monuments in state institutions.

 

[Town Heretic]

Christianity is not well served by trying to override the Constitution by placing religious monuments in state institutions.

Neither the Constitution nor the people are served by treating any notice of religion as establishment. It's nonsense.

 

[rexlunae]

Neither the Constitution nor the people are served by treating any notice of religion as establishment. It's nonsense.

As I carefully laid out above, a great number of Supreme Court justices, most of whom are presumably Christian, have seen the display of the Ten Commandments on public property as establishment. I can't find any case where that precedent has been reversed. It seems like you run into God in the very first line, so I don't really know what you're missing.

:idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

As I carefully laid out above, a great number of Supreme Court justices, most of whom are presumably Christian, have seen the display of the Ten Commandments on public property as establishment.

And a majority of that Court once ruled men to be chattel, so while I won't dismiss considered opinion I reserve the right to differ with it.

I can't find any case where that precedent has been reversed. It seems like you run into God in the very first line, so I don't really know what you're missing.

Assume for a moment that I'm not missing anything, that reading the same facts I draw a different conclusion, one rooted in a less fearful and severe premise. One founded in a trust and appreciation of the nature of a people who ceded what no one could have demanded only to find themselves suspect for the trouble.

:e4e:

 

[quip]

And a majority of that Court once ruled men to be chattel, so while I won't dismiss considered opinion I reserve the right to differ with it.

While Christianity proper currently consider homosexual unions as abominations. How do you reconcile christianity's legal influence in this regard to that of the larger discussion?

 

[rexlunae]

And a majority of that Court once ruled men to be chattel, so while I won't dismiss considered opinion I reserve the right to differ with it.

It's been quite a while since the Court ruled that men were chattel. Not so long on these issues. But, fair enough. We'll set aside the Supreme Court's considered opinions for the sake of argument, as long as we're clear what we're doing.

Assume for a moment that I'm not missing anything, that reading the same facts I draw a different conclusion, one rooted in a less fearful and severe premise. One founded in a trust and appreciation of the nature of a people who ceded what no one could have demanded only to find themselves suspect for the trouble.

Our compact states that we won't use the government to establish religion. Some Oklahoman Christians have broken that covenant in what seem to me to be strikingly clear terms. The suspicion was not aimed at all Christians, or even all Christians in Oklahoma, but rather the sort of Christian that advocates for Christian supremacy to the extent that they seek to remake Oklahoma as a religious state. Frankly, we've seen these tactics, one of which is to deny the religiosity of Christian doctrine, many times before, which is part of the reason that a robust case law already exists to address the issue.

Beyond that, what concerns me here, is the attempt to construct "a people" from a subset of the people of the United States, i.e. Christians. This seems synthetic, as the United States has never within its lifetime been partitioned in terms of religion, and in a political context, it's worrying to find ones self on the outside of the box being drawn around a body politic. When the United States was born, it had a Christian majority, true (as well as many unjustly excluded for reasons of race and sex), but also people of other faiths and none as full citizens. To imagine that it is Christian beneficence that permits the equality of others is to deem others as less than full citizens. You wouldn't have a country without secularists, and Quakers, and deists, and perhaps even the stray atheist, just as they wouldn't have a country without you.

So, all that having been said, how can you possibly justify the posting of a monument with, what seems to be negligible historical significance and what appears to me to be a clear religious message and purpose on Constitutional grounds?

 

[jgarden]

As I carefully laid out above, a great number of Supreme Court justices, most of whom are presumably Christian, have seen the display of the Ten Commandments on public property as establishment. I can't find any case where that precedent has been reversed. It seems like you run into God in the very first line, so I don't really know what you're missing.

:idunno:

The Founding Fathers had already seen the wars that had ravaged Europe as the response to the establishment of official state-sponsored religions.

Many had emigrated to America seeking the freedom to worship according to their conscience, a principle that is an integral part of America's heritage.

Anything that would erode that separation of Church and State, no matter how well intentioned, undermines the religious freedoms that we all enjoy!

 

[PureX]

Neither the Constitution nor the people are served by treating any notice of religion as establishment. It's nonsense.

There is no logical reason to make "notice" of religion in a public court house but to infer government (judicial) advocacy of that religion. That is not "nonsense", it's the simple reality of it. And you are being disingenuous in trying to imply otherwise.

 

[Town Heretic]

There is no logical reason to make "notice" of religion in a public court house but to infer government (judicial) advocacy of that religion.

The Ten Commandments are more than a religious symbol and the S. Ct. has already found a "logicl reason" to include them in their chambers.

That is not "nonsense", it's the simple reality of it.

That's your reality/bias/assumption.

And you are being disingenuous in trying to imply otherwise.

So no one can oppose your bias without being disingenuous...then you're not appreciably different than the religious fanatic you see behind every bush, apparently.