Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vylo · 06-27-2003, 05:23 AM

The 10 commandments:

1. You shall have no other god then me - seems inappropriate as many people ahve other gods.

2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth - again many people have different beliefs on this and there is no legal restriction on graven images, so this is improper to have on a courthouse or schoolroom.

3. You shall not take the name of the lord your God in vain - not everyone believes in god, and that is not illegal

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy - again there is no law making sunday special in such a way.

5. Honor your father and your mother - considering they are your legal guardians I fell this one does have bearing on everyone's lives

6. 'You shall not murder - that seems appropriate on a courthouse

7. 'You shall not commit adultery - while not overtly outlawed, divorce can be influenced by this, so it does pertain to legal issues, so no real problem here.

8. 'You shall not steal - see number 6

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor - see number 6

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's - this seems to pertain somewhat to number 8, but I'm not sure it is appropriate for a courthouse.

so if we only include 5-9 maybe I can see those being on a courthouse, the rest while perhaps they do not warrant removal, are certainly in bad taste, and I would hope the courthouse would remove them of their own will.

Stephen Maturin · 06-27-2003, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
The 3rd Circuit seems to be saying that sinece the Commissioners sincerely believed that the 10C were the foundation for our secular laws, bolstered by some quotes that show nothing of the sort, that their actions are OK.

Yep, that's it exactly. They're saying that the "secular purpose" prong of Lemon is judged under a subjective standard, in this case what the Commissioners actually believed at the time they decided not to remove the plaque.

On the other hand, the endorsement test incorporates an objective "reasonable observer" test. That sounds pretty good until the court starts manufacturing buttloads of presumptions regarding what the reasonable observer knows about the plaque and its history. And then there's the wacky-assed analysis that ultimately gets the court where it wants to go:

Quote:

For the reasons stated above, and in the prescient words of Justice Goldberg, we believe the plaque, when viewed in the context of its history, is not �real threat,� but is instead �mere shadow.� The fact that the plaque is a longstanding fixture on an historic monument, the Courthouse itself (which has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places), lends further support for the notion that the context of the plaque changes the way in which the reasonable observer views it. As counsel for amicus Chester County Historic Preservation Network reasoned at oral argument, over time, additions to historic monuments can become part of the historic monuments themselves. While the preservationist perspective would not militate in favor of affixing the Ten Commandments plaque to this historic Courthouse today, it opposes tearing down this plaque because it has become part of the history of the Chester County Courthouse, a monument significant to Chester County. A reasonable observer must be presumed to know the history of the Courthouse (a marker noting the historic nature of the Courthouse is actually affixed to the same east facade to which the Ten Commandments plaque is affixed) and the fact that the plaque itself has become part of this historic Courthouse. Thus, the reasonable observer would perceive the plaque as a part of an historic monument, namely the Courthouse itself. Viewed in this context, the Commissioners� refusal to remove the plaque appears even less like an endorsement of religion and more likely motivated by the desire to preserve a plaque that has become part of the Courthouse.

What the hell?! A property law based "fixtures test" for Establishment Clause cases? A Scaliaesque it's-been-there-so-long-that-it-must-be-constitutional test? Throughout that opinion the court selectively loses sight of the fact that it's not the plaque itself but the WORDS ON THE PLAQUE that count here.

The more I read it, the more the opinion looks like a frenetic, cobbled-together mess.

nj_heathens · 06-27-2003, 07:31 PM

Mr. Heathen and I know Margaret Downey and have met Sally Flynn and other members of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia. The following is an excerpt of an email that Margaret sent out in the early morning hours of June 26:

Quote:

The Third Circuit decision regarding the Ten Commandment plaque is due to be released at 7 AM tomorrow morning (June 26). Needless to say, [we] are anxious and nervous about the final word from the appeals level judges.

A rally has been called for by the "Save the Plaque" committee. The rally will take place at 2 PM at the Chester County Courthouse (on the corner of High and Gay Streets) in West Chester.

If we win, I'm sure the crowd will be hostile. If we lose, the crowd will happily celebrate the fact that the county can display an overtly religious icon. [confidential request snipped] Neither Sally nor I will attend since we are easily recognized by many "Save the Plaque" committee members. As you recall when we won in federal court, I received hate mail, death threats, and harassment calls. The police have been notified that there may be a recurrence of hatred. I am prepared to be more than careful in and out of the office.

The press is going to go wild tomorrow. Sally and I will be very busy doing interviews and giving statements. We are asking for people on this list to tape record as many television and radio accounts of this decision as possible.

All videos and photographs will be used for the Ten Commandment archives, the newsletter, and a book I am writing about this experience. Your help is needed.

If we lose at this level, we will be able to hold our heads high knowing that we tried our best to guarantee that our government remains free from religious intrusion.

If we win, [moot celebratory comment snipped]

Here we go!!!

Margaret Downey

It seems to me that Margaret's comment about possibly losing implies that FSGP will not appeal the 3rd Circuit's decision, but I don't know that for sure. I'm going to give her some space for a few more days, and then I'll pose the question to her. I'm sure financial considerations are involved.

Mrs. Heathen

Toto · 06-27-2003, 10:40 PM

I think that more than finances are at stake. The ACLU is, I think, in control of the litigation, and they will look at the possibilities of success, and the possibilities of making bad law if they do appeal.

I imagine that they will ask for an en banc review in front of the entire 3rd circuit.

RufusAtticus · 06-28-2003, 02:54 AM

The ACLU is probably expecting one of the Kentucky or the Alabama 10C case to make it to the supreme court and hoping that the if they win, the decision will be broad enough to cover the Chester plaque.

pariah · 06-29-2003, 08:58 AM

WHAT THE FUCK

No one would consider this an endorsement of religion? Maybe I should plaster swastikas on everything I own, of course I'm obviously not endorsing the nazis, but I am a kraut so its just tradition!

bullshit...

i actually saw the commandments yesterday on the actual courthouse...it was horrible...ugh

NonHomogenized · 06-29-2003, 10:18 PM

What a sad development.
I hope it gets shot down in flames by a supreme court ruling (either as a result of this particular case, or or one of the similar ones)

Vylo · 06-30-2003, 04:37 AM

I'm wondering about the historical value of such a plaque. In any case I suppose it really should be removed and replace by something more relevant and tasteful.

Worldtraveller · 07-03-2003, 12:49 AM

This is very interesting in light of the comments made in reviewing the 10C case in Alabama. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=57002

According to the 11th circuit, the older plaque is small, out of the way, and not located anywhere near the entrance of the building.

So if someone goes and puts a statue/plaque of the Koran, or the Code of Hammurabi, it should be ok as well, as long as it is 'out of the way'?? Or is it because it's been there for 80 years?

Ya gotta wonder...

-Lane

EverLastingGodStopper · 07-07-2003, 06:03 AM

I recently met Margaret Downey, and I'm involved in the FSGP (mostly online). You can email her at: fsgp@freethought.org and tell her how you feel about the FSGP's work on the Chester County PA 10 Commandments case.

Regarding the plethora of similar lawsuits nationwide, I think that the Supreme Court is going to HAVE to hear ONE of these appeals... soon, I hope.

Fighting the religious right's efforts to force their god-beliefs onto us, via our government, takes a lot of time and money. If you can do so, please support your local atheists financially. Other means of support includes LTEs (Letters to The Editor), attendance at atheist-related events, and sharing news, info, and support with each other.

I'm trying to organize South Jersey atheists to be more visible and vocal.

-Janice Rael
jrael@atheists.org

With great big *kissies* to NJ Heathens! *grins*

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-27-2003, 05:23 AM	#11
Vylo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: washington, NJ 07882 Posts: 253	The 10 commandments: 1. You shall have no other god then me - seems inappropriate as many people ahve other gods. 2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth - again many people have different beliefs on this and there is no legal restriction on graven images, so this is improper to have on a courthouse or schoolroom. 3. You shall not take the name of the lord your God in vain - not everyone believes in god, and that is not illegal 4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy - again there is no law making sunday special in such a way. 5. Honor your father and your mother - considering they are your legal guardians I fell this one does have bearing on everyone's lives 6. 'You shall not murder - that seems appropriate on a courthouse 7. 'You shall not commit adultery - while not overtly outlawed, divorce can be influenced by this, so it does pertain to legal issues, so no real problem here. 8. 'You shall not steal - see number 6 9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor - see number 6 10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's - this seems to pertain somewhat to number 8, but I'm not sure it is appropriate for a courthouse. so if we only include 5-9 maybe I can see those being on a courthouse, the rest while perhaps they do not warrant removal, are certainly in bad taste, and I would hope the courthouse would remove them of their own will.

06-27-2003, 10:40 PM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think that more than finances are at stake. The ACLU is, I think, in control of the litigation, and they will look at the possibilities of success, and the possibilities of making bad law if they do appeal. I imagine that they will ask for an en banc review in front of the entire 3rd circuit.

06-28-2003, 02:54 AM	#15
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	The ACLU is probably expecting one of the Kentucky or the Alabama 10C case to make it to the supreme court and hoping that the if they win, the decision will be broad enough to cover the Chester plaque.

06-29-2003, 08:58 AM	#16
pariah Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: الرياض Posts: 6,456	WHAT THE FUCK No one would consider this an endorsement of religion? Maybe I should plaster swastikas on everything I own, of course I'm obviously not endorsing the nazis, but I am a kraut so its just tradition! bullshit... i actually saw the commandments yesterday on the actual courthouse...it was horrible...ugh

06-29-2003, 10:18 PM	#17
NonHomogenized Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: no longer at IIDB Posts: 1,644	What a sad development. I hope it gets shot down in flames by a supreme court ruling (either as a result of this particular case, or or one of the similar ones)

06-30-2003, 04:37 AM	#18
Vylo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: washington, NJ 07882 Posts: 253	I'm wondering about the historical value of such a plaque. In any case I suppose it really should be removed and replace by something more relevant and tasteful.

07-03-2003, 12:49 AM	#19
Worldtraveller Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,834	This is very interesting in light of the comments made in reviewing the 10C case in Alabama. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=57002 According to the 11th circuit, the older plaque is small, out of the way, and not located anywhere near the entrance of the building. So if someone goes and puts a statue/plaque of the Koran, or the Code of Hammurabi, it should be ok as well, as long as it is 'out of the way'?? Or is it because it's been there for 80 years? Ya gotta wonder... -Lane

07-07-2003, 06:03 AM	#20
EverLastingGodStopper Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 16,665	I recently met Margaret Downey, and I'm involved in the FSGP (mostly online). You can email her at: fsgp@freethought.org and tell her how you feel about the FSGP's work on the Chester County PA 10 Commandments case. Regarding the plethora of similar lawsuits nationwide, I think that the Supreme Court is going to HAVE to hear ONE of these appeals... soon, I hope. Fighting the religious right's efforts to force their god-beliefs onto us, via our government, takes a lot of time and money. If you can do so, please support your local atheists financially. Other means of support includes LTEs (Letters to The Editor), attendance at atheist-related events, and sharing news, info, and support with each other. I'm trying to organize South Jersey atheists to be more visible and vocal. -Janice Rael jrael@atheists.org With great big kissies to NJ Heathens! grins

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.