crazyfingers

I think that it's most correct to limit the issue of free speech to people. The "Government" really has no rights, only power.

Jacey

Manion is from the ACLJ. 'Nuff said.

Wyz_sub10

It isn't about free speech or expression. It sounds like you are making the classic mistake of confusing expression with endorsement.

Kids can pray in schools. But teachers cannot lead them. There is a *big* distinction here, and it is one you are missing. The location of the 10 Commandments is *not* an entity of itself (i.e. deserving of free spreech and free expression).

Rather, it is a representation of a diverse group - a collective body that speaks for *no one man* or *no one group*. By saying that FOS is being upheld here, I would ask, who's speech? If I am a resident atheist/Muslim/Toaist/whatever, what are they speaking for on my behalf?

You are confusing the insitution with the individual. *Kids* can pray, *schools* cannot.

Freedom of Speech serves to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, not the other way around.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

Philosoft

What people? What does posting the decalogue in a courthouse have to do with what a person says?

<strong> Christians won't object to the posting of the decalogue because they are Christians, not because they have any idea what is the basis for American law.

Truly, ManM, the decalogue-as-basis-for-American-legal-system is one of the most prima facie absurd assertions I've ever heard. No fewer than 6 of them are patently unconstitutional. If not for total dishonesty on the part of proponents, there would be no discussion at all, much less any idea to put "out in the open."

RufusAtticus

Well considering that earlier this year another KY county was ordered to take down the 10Cs, I doubt this judgement will hold up on appeal. There is just too much precidence floating around now adays. This is the first case that I have heard of where the government posting of 10Cs survived.

Ab_Normal

ManM:
They can express themselves however they choose in their free time, off government property. However, on the job their expression is considered the government's expression, and is therefore properly constrained by the Establishment Clause.

ManM

Wyz_sub10,
Ah, but can teachers pray in school where kids can hear them? That is the question.

The person who put up the commandments.

No, you are making a false separation. I would seriously freak out if I saw a school praying. Really what you are saying is that certain people can pray and that others cannot. Certain people can place the ten commandments in certain places, but cannot do so in other places. That is censorship, plain and simple.

No, freedom of speech (theoretically) protects all people from censorship.

Philosoft,
The person (judge I assume) who wants the commandments on his courtroom wall. Freedom of speech includes freedom of expression (see flag burning).

It could be the humanist manifesto for all I care. I value the freedom, not the content.

Ab_Normal,
This is hogwash. Was <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=001011" target="_blank">this congressman</a> expressing the government's official position on things?

simian

ManM,

Would you whole-heartedly support putting up a large granite monument in front of every county courthouse that says "There are no gods. All gods are make-believe. This includes any you believe in."?

Simian

ManM

simian,
No, I would not support mandating that any more than I would support mandating statues of Jesus out front.

I certainly wouldn't like such a statue, but my dislike of the statue would not give me the right to take away your freedom of expression.

Secular Elation

I hope for a day when people (including government employees) are free to express themselves as they so choose. This ruling is a step in the right direction for a change.

They can express themselves. They simply cannot use their position powers, by passing a law or using legislation, to endorse or further their particular religion.

I don't care if someone wants to put the Ten Commandments, or any other specific religious document for that matter, on their house, on their church, or any other owned property.

However, placing the Ten Commandments on, say, City Hall, is in violation. Think about it: the local government of a city is basically endorsing what is contained in the document. One of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not worship any gods before me" (I think - the wording may be a bit different). Like I wrote above, this is sticking a tongue out to all the non-christians: atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims (unless they accept the 10C as well), Pagans, and the like. How would you feel if you were a Buddhist walking into a court room and seeing those words above the judge?