fromtheright

Feather,

Maybe you should "think" about it for awhile.

beejay

So to repeat Feather's question without the quotation marks...

Are you saying that any religious text can be posted without violating the establishment clause? How much would have to be done to violate the establishment clause in your opinion?

You will concede that this is not how the courts have ruled, won't you?

RufusAtticus

Well if moore keeps this up, maybe he might violate something in the AL ethics code. Then he might get disbarred and couldn't be a judge anymore.

fromtheright

beejay,

Excellent question, the first. I have no problem with posting the Ten Commandments in schools or government buildings, or posting it in the Supreme Court chambers either. Such posts are not establishments, there is no coercion involved, no one is commanded to worship in a particular way, or to worship at all. That said, I do disagree with State-written and prescribed prayers for schools.

Yes, I would agree with you as to the Court's ruling. That doesn't mean they're always right. Do you concede that?



Rufus,

All that said, as I have said before, it wouldn't bother me a bit to see him disbarred for his disobeying the judge's order.



Jamie_L,

The founders, in their wisdom, gave us the tools to adapt our government to the demands of our time.

Does that mean that McCarthyism was right for "its time". Eras, as the people who live in them, are subject to errors, which is why the original meaning should be as closely adhered to as possible. As to SLD's [excellent] response to this point, regarding seditious libel, my argument is that the Alien and Sedition Acts were opposed on First Amendment grounds at the time, so I think that doctrine was weakened considerably with the Bill of Rights.

beejay

And you wouldn't have a problem with ANY religious posting, Christian, Jewish, Moslem or Raelian? (And not just "equal time". There are school districts in Detroit that are predominantly Moslem. So Moslem displays to the exclusion of Christian would be OK?)

And yes, the Courts are not always right. Which is why control of the Presidency and/or Senate is so important to make sure that the judges who are appointed correctly understand the Constitution.

And, as a note to what you said to Rufus, I don't think Moore has disobeyed a judge's order yet. The order to remove the 10C monument has been stayed pending appeal.

Feather

Why don't you just answer the damned question instead of hemhawing around and repeating your "feeling" that it's okay to post religious baubles in government offices, as you did in your response to beejay?

Your line of "reasoning" so far seems to be this:

1) A person has authority as an official of the government.
2) Said person is free to post Rules from his religion on the grounds of the office for which he exercises authority
3) This is not in any way equivalent to the official using his powers to endorse, support, or legitimate the religious claims inherent in the Rules he's posted.

I'm having difficulty going from (2) to (3), here. It seems to me that if a person with power makes an assertion while exercising the duties of his office, then as an official he is making the same assertion on behalf of the entity which he represents.

I don't see how you might conclude anything else. The line of reasoning seems to rest on your assertion that he's not "establishing" religion.

So the question stands: what exaclty must one do to "establish" a religion? If posting statements commanding worship of a deity in an official capacity, on official grounds, with the weight of the authority of the office behind it does not, I can hardly think of anything that might.

The kind of doublethink involved here is just staggering to me.

And you certainly haven't done anything to support your assertions.

Jamie_L

McCarthysim wasn't right for its time, as was the feeling of many people of the time. Eras are subject to errors, including the eras of the founders. Within the bounds of reasonable interpretation, it's perfectly valid for us to argue over what constitutes the "right" interpretation for us. That's what we're doing with this monument. There are some founders who would have had no problem with the monument, and some who would have fought it. No one can agree what the original meaning is. Why waste time fighting over what it was supposed to mean? Better to fight over what it should mean in order to best uphold the spirit of the Constitution within our current society.

Jamie

Grad Student Humanist

Who gives a flip what the Founding Fathers thought? They lost their right to influence the government when they expired two centuries ago. Not to mention that it's ridiculous to say "Washington would think this" or "Jefferson would think that" considering the fact that neither could have possibly imagined what this country (or this world for that matter) would be like in 2003. It's as silly as thinking that Newton or Einstein (or any other scientist or philosopher) wouldn't revise their ideas based on the discoveries and progress in science made after their deaths.

It's not as if the Founding Fathers' opinions on other matters haven't been discarded, and rightly so. Nobody these days is going around saying black people should be enslaved, or that women and poor people should be disenfranchised which is what the Founding Fathers thought.

fromtheright

Jamie L and Grad Student Humanist,

If no one can agree on what the original meaning is, then it really just becomes an appeal to electoral might with complete disregard for the document itself. At least by appealing to history, both sides can appeal to something objective. Yes, circumstances and technology, etc. change but the starting point should be the intent of those who wrote the document. I don't think the argument as to returning to slavery is valid as the Constitution was eventually righted with the Reconstruction amendments. If there is no search for the letter, then it seems to me the document loses all spirit except for what can be divined from imagination. I've said before the search for original intent is certainly not an easy one that is subject to contention, but I believe the search for the meaning should be what that meaning was when it was written--and duly amended.


Feather,

what exaclty must one do to "establish" a religion?

I've answered before. If you want to see what must be done, go back and look at the period when there were established religions. And these monuments are nowhere close.


beejay

And you wouldn't have a problem with ANY religious posting, Christian, Jewish, Moslem or Raelian? (And not just "equal time". There are school districts in Detroit that are predominantly Moslem. So Moslem displays to the exclusion of Christian would be OK?)

I wouldn't like it but, yes, as long as there is no coercion involved, I would have no problem with it. It still doesn't constitute an establishment.

And yes, the Courts are not always right. Which is why control of the Presidency and/or Senate is so important to make sure that the judges who are appointed correctly understand the Constitution.

Agreed on at least one thing, so that conservative appointees can move us back to looking for original intent. Sorry, couldn't help it.

And, as a note to what you said to Rufus, I don't think Moore has disobeyed a judge's order yet. The order to remove the 10C monument has been stayed pending appeal.

You're right, but Moore was ready to disobey and threatened to do so.

Jamie_L

It is true that in an individual case, you don't want a judge saying "this is the way things should be, so that's the way I'll interpret them. So you do have to search for original intent.

In truth, however, the electorate has a trickle-down effect on interpretation, because politicians appoint judges who interpret things the way they want them interpretted. So, in a general sense, we should be thinking about what is best for our country/society beyond the original intent of the founders. We're still having the same disagreements they had when they were debating the Constitution.

Jamie