I can just see the headlines... "In Landmark Case, Supreme Court Strikes Down Reason Country Was Started"

Lame. Political lobbyists sit back and laugh as the Christian Right squabbles with the atheist left over whether or not people can squeeze in a couple of Hallelujah's prior to discussing city business, while actual political reformers are locked up for seven years:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/05/cecily-mcmillan-occupy-guilty-police-violence

@bo,

'" I can just see the headlines... "In Landmark Case, Supreme Court Strikes Down Reason Country Was Started"'

So, your claim is that the United States was started *specifically so that there would not be prayer in public assemblies*? Does it seem odd to you that, if this was the case, they did not actually get around to eliminating prayer from public assemblies? Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this striking claim?

I'm annoyed that the most High, Holy, and Sanctified Supreme Court wasted one of the hundred or so cases they hear each year on such a trivial matter.

Well, they didn't really, Tolstoy. The Supreme Court is recognized even by itself not to take enough cases -- the problem is that they just don't get enough cases that they consider worthwhile. So it's not like this was a slot that could have gone to another case. They have plenty of such slots if there had been another case they found worthwhile.

More idiocy. What the hell happened to pluralism? Leftist/secular leaning local governments should insist on praising Allah and Satan interchangeably, and doing their very best to make a mockery of the whole works... well, more of a mockery.

Oh, I posted this in the bible thread, but nobody paid any attention, so I'll share it again here, as it's somewhat relevant:

http://www.vice.com/read/heres-the-first-look-at-the-new-satanic-monument-being-built-for-oklahomas-statehouse?utm_source=vicefbus

Responses like these are the only appropriate way to mock the kind of stupidity as what we've been handed here. Well, thanks for sharing anyways, Semck.

And here I thought the question of whether "establishment" is best defined as "coercion" or "endorsement" was actually an interesting one. I should have come and read the thread before I read the article. [snaps fingers] Foiled again!

@Yellowjacket,

I'm not sure whom the Satanic Temple has hired for legal advice, but I don't think they're getting their money's worth.

Competent counsel would inform them that, in those cases where diplsays of the Ten Commandments have been allowed outside legislative or silmilar buildings, it has been because of their important historical and cultural impact on the developmnet of Anglo-American law. Nothing would be easier than for the state to point out that Satanic worship -- in contrast -- has played extremely little (explicit) role in the development of our law, and that the state is therefore rejecting the satanic monument for the same reason it would reject, say, a crucifix: it amounts to an endorsement of religion without sufficient contextual justification.

Anyway, though, I'm always happy to see the Satanic temple pouring its money down a rabbit hole, so happy ending for everyone.

Yes, semck, I'm sure there exists any number of bullshit arguments why displaying the ten commandments isn't religiously motivated. I for one, feel deep emotional attachment to the line "I am the Lord your God" because of its terribly important impact on the aspects of our culture that I despise and revile. It's nice to have a constant reminder of that in the seat of power of a government that is supposed to represent me fairly.

YJ,

BS arguments or not, those are the current binding precedents of the Supreme Court's case law on this matter. They just yesterday moved slightly to the right on this point. I would say that the odds that the Satanic Temple is going to score some kind of "gotcha" legal victory over OK is very low, so I just hope they didn't have a better use they could have made of that money, or of whatever they are paying their lawyers for questionable advice. That is all I meant.

So YJ - you are telling me that every time you see the Ten Commandments, you feel some sudden oppression? You see them printed, and it's like a lightning bolt from on-high strikes you in your little noggen and you feel compelled to act and believe differently?

Oh...what....no? You don't? You mean you are a free man with a free will and you act and believe based upon what you know, not based upon some dusty old wall art in a building?

But...wait...you think that everyone around you are of such low intellect that will *instantly* succumb to the devious message of good behavior on the wall, and will fall to their knees in prayer, dismissing their prior beliefs because of the magic god-art on the wall?

Is this an accurate description of your viewpoint?

@semck, yes, and thank you for pointing that out, it is both important and interesting. I was more expressing a general outrage than contradicting what you were saying re: the baphomet - which, by the way is awesome and I'll totally commission one if it falls through.

@krellin not quite accurate. I think my feelings on the matter can likely be accurately equated with how you would feel if passages from the Quran were posted in a government building.

If the local community was for it...let's say Dearborn, MI, then it would probably be OK.

Unlike Liberals, I don't believe that simply seeing a passage of scripture, hearing a prayer, etc, means we are suddenly a Theocracy. Rather, it is a simple reflection of the people

This **utterly perverse** notion from Liberals that unless there is 100% agreement on a thing, it can not be seen in public is just another form of their authoritarian leanings...except...you know...if we are celebrating some sexual perversity, in which case they want it emblazoned in gold and posted in the town square.

Further, the idiotic interpretation of "freedom of religion" doesn't mean "eradication of religion from the public". It doesn't mean "freedom FROM religion"

Posting a religious moral code...which is *literally* reflected in our laws...and is most likely in agreement with all major religions (by the way, Muslims accept the old testament...)...is hardly a state endorsement of a particular religion, but rather is a reflection of the heritage of our country and culture.

Next thing you know the Liberals will start demanding that all the wood paneling that you inevitably find in many courtrooms must come down, because it is a visible sing that our government supports the destruction of old growth forests.

Hi krellin, you say It doesn't mean "freedom FROM religion." Actually, I think it does, as far as the government is concerned. semck, can you chime in here one way or the other? I mean, to get away with this commandment monument thing, the people who want it have to detach it entirely from its religious connotations, and focus exclusively on the cultural relevance, yes? I'm not saying there is no cultural relevance to it, I'm saying old YJ is not fooled, and I know why they REALLY want it.

So the problem with doing so, in my opinion, is that while you say its a "reflection of the people" it's really just a reflection of the local majority of the people, and it leaves people who don't share those values feeling disenfranchised from their own government. Despite your claim that the religious moral code is "literally" reflected in our laws, if you examine the ten commandments closely you'll see only 3-4 of them (kill, steal, false witness, maybe adultery in civil cases) have actual legal grounding.

What scares me is that the posting of these monuments make people THINK what you just said, that our system of justice is not detachable from Christian morality, when it clearly is.

To a liberal, Freedom FROM relgiion means that liberal assclowns think they get to throw a fit and stomp and whine like little bitches anytime someone mentions the word "god" outside the doors of a church...but if you want to talk about assfucking your boyfriend, we are all supposed to shut up and sit with rapt attention.

The state is not endorsing a specific religion just because they have a set of verses on the wall, period. There is *no evidence* to suggest that at any time there has ever been ANY movement to turn out country, any state, any county or city into a Theocracy just because there are verses haning on the wall of a court house.

As for your "local majority"....hate to tell you this, pal, but our ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM is built upon "local majority", up to an including the Supreme Court, which is ruled by the "local majority".

That silly little liberals think that a single voice of denial on any given matter means it should be tossed out is just demented....particularly since these very same libtards in modern incarnation seem to be amongst the *least* tolerant of anyone in our present culture. i.e. they want everything they disagree with eliminated, and if you disagree with them...they want *YOU* eliminated.

You act like "the posting of these (god-magic) monuments is some sort of modern scheme by sneaky Christian trying to convert you to their belief without you realizing it (again, playing on the principle that apparently athiests are amongst the stupidest and most gullible of all humanity)....when in truth, our country it *littered* with scripture carved in stones and plaques and momuments from the time of our founding...and this sudden (within the last 50 years) insistence by radical athiests that they are harmed by words write on a wall is simply absurd.

Get the fuck over it.

As fro people "thinking" that our system of justice is tied to "christian moraltiy" is simply a fact, YJ. Since European culture is the basis of both our religion and our legal system, it's just an undeniable cultural fact. Our legal system sure as hell isn't based on, say, Hammurabi's law, or even Islamic law. As for the specific word "detached"....uhhh....I really don't even know what you are talking about here. Would you like to "detach" our laws from "christian morality"? So....what...I guess you want to say it's OK to steal, fuck your neighbor's wife, kill....I mean, I'm not sure what parts of the general morality of Christianity you are so concerned with? In truth, we have plenty of laws that are "detached" from Christian morality as is...proof enough that we are by no means a "christian nation".

But I know...perception is reality...so facts don't really matter in such discussions.

The only thing that matters is that ignorant atheists have this fear that their brethren are going to become sudden converts by waking past the magic god-plaque on the courthouse wall.

"...which is *literally* reflected in our laws..."

Not specifically and what (at least of the 10 Commandments) is included is pretty universal and not Christian-specific. Keeping the Sabbath holy, coveting thy neighbor's wife, honor thy father/mother, etc. is nowhere in our legal code. Thou shalt not murder is pretty important, but again, murder being illegal is pretty universal, as is stealing, so saying that the Ten Commandments form the basis of American legal code is silly at best and a horrible understanding of both Christianity and the law at worst.

Now if we only knew what commandments 11-15 said.

Congress shall make no law...

I don't believe a plaque on a wall or a prayer by a clergy is a law...

krellin, your argument is a bastion of iron logic and I cannot stand before it.

With four short paragraphs you have not only converted me to Christianity, I am also no longer a libtard. Well done.

@2WL -- you will note the word "reflected"...it does not say that the ten commandments ARE law...it means the general moral concepts are represented there. as you **rightly** point out, they are pretty universal...you know, be nice to each other and stop taking other people's shit!! So how having these general principle on a wall harms you is beyond me.

As for keeping the sabath holy - actually, funny thing is, while government offices are sometimes open on Saturday, I'll be pretty impresed if you can fidn one open on Sunday (yes, Saturday is the "sabath", Sunday is the "christian" sabbath, if I can be so bold as to re-interpret...). So...actually, government does acknowledge the sabbath. Try to change that ones and the government unions will riot, no doubt.

As for coveting wives, etc...divorce law does reflect this. If you are the first to break the marriage, you'll probably be the one fucked in court.

Honro thy father/mother....strangley enough...<gasp>....parents are legally responsible fortheir kids, and to some extent kids are legally bound to obey their parents (again, to an extent)...

So sorry, but the ten commandments are much more widely *reflected* (not duplicated...just more of a shadowy illusion, a reflection, like in a rippling pond's surface) in our laws than you care to admit.

krellin, if you can find me any legal code stating that I need to "honor my parents", I'd love to see it. Legal responsibility on the parents' part has no bearing on whether or not a 12 year old can be a little asshole to mom in the grocery store. No laws against "graven images" either. And when I'm working all day on Sunday at the public library, I always make sure to sit for a while, to at least keep the Sabbath somewhat holy.

As for divorce law, that's only if a party files for divorce and responsibility needs to be determined by a judge or mediator. As far as adultery laws are concerned, how can you possibly argue that they are *not* directly taken from the 10 Commandments?

2WL -- good lord, man, stop being so dense. I know you are more intelligent than you are pretending to be.

Go stand in front of a pond, and look at the *reflections* of the world around you. They are not perfect duplicates...they are shadowy "like images". I never said that "honor thy mother and father" is in the legal code, dumbass, and you know it. But the chaim of responsibility - both from parents to child, and from child to parents, is. Period. End of discussion. I, as a parent, can be held responsible for the actions of my children, and my children can be held accountable for disobeying me and/or at the very least my responsibility to/for them can be severed when I have proven that they have disobeyed me.

You can deny until the cows some home that "christian morality" isnt' reflected in our legal code, and general way of life. You will simply be wrong.


Enough said.

"at the very least my responsibility to/for them can be severed when I have proven that they have disobeyed me."

That's not very Christian of you :)

"http://www.vice.com/read/heres-the-first-look-at-the-new-satanic-monument-being-built-for-oklahomas-statehouse?utm_source=vicefbus: -- State Representative Paul Wesselhoft told a local news station in January. “The only reason why the Ten Commandments qualified,” he continued, “is because at the Capitol, what we do is we make laws. We are lawmakers. Well, one of the earliest laws we have are the Ten Commandments.” --"

If this really was the reason for the Ten Commandments allowed to be there, a monument displaying the Hammurabic Code would be more appropriate.

Sorry, too arabic sounding.

"So, your claim is that the United States was started *specifically so that there would not be prayer in public assemblies*? Does it seem odd to you that, if this was the case, they did not actually get around to eliminating prayer from public assemblies? Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this striking claim?"

Yes, in part; no, I don't particularly care about this case; seriously, no, I just wanted +1s for my clever line stolen from the interwebs.

The laws in this country are in no way based on some barely literate scratchings from the Middle East.

We're based on 2 things:

The Constitution. Literally, the only mention of God is from the manner in which they record years.

English Common Law. Which pre-dates Christianity on the island.


So no.

Arguably, the Declaration of Independence is one of our founding papers and, in part, inspiration for the Constitution. Why do I bring this up? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Note the mention of "their Creator". Not explicitly Christian but explicitly spiritual in nature.

Jack, you wrote "English Common Law. Which pre-dates Christianity on the island."

Check your facts, dude. Christianity was on the island a couple of hundred years before the English were on the island.

"English Common Law. Which pre-dates Christianity on the island."

Yeah, that's an exceptionally silly thing to say, Jack, even by your unusual standards.

English common law has its roots before there were a people that called themselves English. The petty kingdoms of Mercia, etc. Which have roots in the various invading German tribes. None of which were Christian in any sense at the time.

Draugnar: And the Declaration of Independence isn't law. If Christianity was so important, why was there precisely no references in Constitutional law? (a oversight not repeated in the constitution of the Confederacy, for example).

So yeah. The founders intended a secular republic.

Also, I'll take an apology from Mujus and Semck83 at any time.

https://www.princeton.edu/~ereading/TJChristianity.pdf

Courtesy of Thomas Jefferson.

"Also, I'll take an apology from Mujus and Semck83 at any time. "

No you won't. "Had its roots" is completely different from saying that common law "predates" English Christianity, and really only amounts to pointing out that England has had some kind of legal system for quite awhile. There were vast and novel influences on common law in the early second millenium, many centuries after Christianity had reached England.

If you attempt to redefine "common law" to mean only that part of the law that developed before the early second millenium (as your linked source does), then your first assertion becomes false -- we're based on a heck of a lot more than what was around at 600.

I didn't say the DoI was law. But it did reflect the feeling of the people who later wrote the law at the time. It was the same group of politicians as the two were written just a short time apart. Therefore, one can readily assert that the politicians who wrote the DoI were thinking about the same principles when they wrote the CotUSA.

The assertion that I was refuting was that the Ten Commandments are the basis for our laws.

Which is not the case. Nor are the roots of our law based in any way on the pronouncements of the Bible. Is the law influenced by Christian culture? Sure. But its also influenced by a whole hell of a lot of other things too. To say that the US is a Christian Nation, and our laws derive from Christian teachings is grossly and pathetically ignorant of history.

And btw, you avoided the whole "the guy who wrote the Constitution agrees with me" part.

But I don't expect anything approaching intellectual honesty from you.

Draug: If that was the case, then why did the Constitution so studiously avoid anything of the sort? If what you say is correct, and religious belief was a major concern for our framers, you'd think you'd see that played out. Again, the CSA made no such error. Your argument seems to contradict itself.

@Jack,

"Which is not the case. Nor are the roots of our law based in any way on the pronouncements of the Bible. Is the law influenced by Christian culture? Sure. But its also influenced by a whole hell of a lot of other things too. To say that the US is a Christian Nation, and our laws derive from Christian teachings is grossly and pathetically ignorant of history."

Well, influence is the point. Neither I nor the Supreme Court (in the ten commandments cases) claimed that US law is "based on pronouncements of the Bible," nor that the Ten Commandments are "the basis for" our laws. Rather, they have held that it was an important influence, among other important influences, and there is nothing wrong with recognizing that.

If you ever go the Supreme Court in Washington, you'll notice that there is an image of Moses in the frieze. There are also images of Hammurabi, Solomon, Solon, and others. Recognition of various sources of law is common in courtrooms and legislatures the nation over. Sometimes it's just one that's celebrated, and sometimes that one is the Ten Commandments. But neither I nor the court was claiming exclusive influence, just that it's an influence that can be recognized and celebrated. You're just raising a red herring.

"And btw, you avoided the whole "the guy who wrote the Constitution agrees with me" part.

"But I don't expect anything approaching intellectual honesty from you."

Thomas Jefferson didn't write a word of the Constitution. But I don't expect anything approaching historical knowledge from you.