TrueThinker

Unfortunately I haven't kept up with the news lately. What's the story with this Judge Roy Moore?

Toto

Moore lost in federal district court in Alabama. Read <a href="http://www.au.org/press/pr021118.htm" target="_blank">the AU press release</a>.

Read <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000827" target="_blank">this thread</a> or <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000826" target="_blank">this one</a>.

For history, read <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000749&p=" target="_blank">this</a> and <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000080&p=" target="_blank">this</a>.

dangin

And shame, shame, shame upon your head. Everyone should, at least, watch 30 minutes of news a day. Even headline news. Maybe meet the press on the weekend would do it. I know it's bad, but it is obviously important.

If you have digital cable or satellite, you can get BBC news, and you have no excuse.

Or better yet, at least skim a newspaper, or read the infidels news wire provided here, for free, by our very dedicated news hounds.

Then my shame quota will go way down.

TrueThinker

Calm down dude. My house was struck by lightning a while back and my satellite box is still in servicing. I don't get the newspaper everyday either. Don't go saying "shame" when you don't know my situation.

dangin

Three shames mean that I'm scolding in a joking manner.

But seriously, everyone should be checking the newswire here. Just the right amount of stories to get the blood boiling usually.

A Pumpkin Drifter

I just read an article on the net that said Judge Moore is refusing to remove the monument. I'm smelling a supreme court case. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

TrueThinker

So someone explain. How does- a judge having a monument of the Ten Commandments in a court- translate to "Congress has made a law concerning the establishment of a religion"? If so, how?

Even when the courts have you swear on the Bible before a testimony ("..to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.") how does that translate to "Congress has made a law concerning the establishment of a religion"? I don't know too much about U.S. legislative history, how long has this practice been around?

I was lucky enough to catch Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. No comment about attorney Dershowitz. Even Matthews himself was able to see through his [Dershowitz's] propaganda.

In my short time here in the U.S., I really don't see what all this church-state separation fuss is about. Don't you think it's a bit of an overreaction? Y'all needs to chill out; drink some wine or something, it's good for the stomach.

Caverdude

It's very simple really, separation of church and state is the only way to insure freedom of religion (or from religion). Here's a great quote:
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
Thomas Jefferson

Buffman

True Thinker

So someone explain. How does- a judge having a monument of the Ten Commandments in a court- translate to "Congress has made a law concerning the establishment of a religion"? If so, how?

Even when the courts have you swear on the Bible before a testimony ("..to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.") how does that translate to "Congress has made a law concerning the establishment of a religion"? I don't know too much about U.S. legislative history, how long has this practice been around?

First, you would need to learn some U.S. History. If you understood what Colony (State) established churches had been like prior to the ratification of the Constitution, you would be better able to answer your own questions. I recommend that you go to this first URL and spend some time familiarizing yourself with the history behind all this.

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html</a>

If you elect to do some additional homework, then these following URLs will hold a greater meaning for you. Assuming that you are British, perhaps you will be able to see some comparisons in why your King decided that he no loner wished to be Catholic and "established" the Anglican Church as the "National" church...and why so many people decided to eventually leave the early oppression of your established National church.

Many came to the colonies and "established" their own brand of oppressive church-state (colony) affiliations...which actually included the hanging of some Christians who did not practice the state established Christian religious beliefs. Then there is the issue of taxing to support the established church.

A rather good book to read which should give you a better working knowledge is: "Church and State in America" by Edwin S. Gaustad, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, 1999.

The following URLs all contribute partial answers to your queries. It is their synergism that provides rhe answers you seek.

<a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art2.htm</a>

ART II, Sect. 1, Item 7

<a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art6.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art6.htm</a>

ART VI, Item 3

<a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rights1.htm#1" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rights1.htm#1</a>

Amendment I

(Extract)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
(End extract)

<a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amend1.htm#14" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amend1.htm#14</a>

Item 1

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now you would need to review all the U.S.Supreme Court decisions on Church-State separation to grasp what is really going on here with/about that monument. (You will find them in that first URL I provided.)

The problems that arise with your questions are their superficial nature and any quick, simplistic, answers would never reveal the true issues that are being so hotly contested. We have a secular federal republic form of government. Yet we are one of the most religious and non-religious, pluralistic, democratic, nations on earth. Some religious people are convinced that their religion, and their denomination of that sect of their religion, is the only true and correct one. Many of those people have found their way into elected and appointed government positions and are in the process of undermining the secular Constitution in favor of a specific sectarian type of government. A monument to a specific, monotheistic, supernatural, God placed at the very entrance to the halls of secular justice is antithetical to everything in which I personally believe and swore an oath to defend and support....The U.S. Constitution.

dangin

A simple and unused litmus test is:

If one penny of state funds (generated by taxes) is used in the support, promotion, or even public address of religion, it goes against the separation of state and church.

In reality this is not how it actually plays out, but this is the dividing line, or the base of the wall if you will.

"Establishment" in the establishment clause does not mean the state cannot establish (set up, open for business) a church or religion. It has a much broader meaning of showing any form of favoritism or support to any church or religion.

The reason those in the know get so uptight about this is that, like abortion, this is a slippery slope. A religious monument here, a prayer in school there and momentum can build for one side. The problem is that those on our side only want momentum enough to hold the wall in place, and not go to the other side of actually creating an atheistic state.

Our opponents want to tear down the wall, trample over everyone's rights, and set up their religion as the state sponsored religion. Failing to see that the religion of the majority can and does change, and within their lifetimes they could be yearning for the protections they destroyed when a different sect or religion siezes the reigns of power.