High atop Washington Monument overlooking is engraved Praise be to God

http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/2003feb/eidsmoe.shtml

 

Separation of church and state is not in the United States Constitution. Every American should have a copy of the Constitution and should read and study it.

 

Nope, because it doesn't respect the establishment of religion. The inscription is one done out of respect.

 

I have a copy of it, and had to study it to become a United States citizen. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. However, the ban of government respecting the establishment of religion (which we refer to as the separation of church and state), is clearly in the Constitution. It's unfortunate that naturalized citizens often know the US Constitution more than native born folks.

 

But aren't atheists and pagans and Satan worshippers offended by that? That is no different than the monument in Alabama. They both acknowledge the Creator. If one of them has to go, then they all have to go. The Leviathan judges have no right to cherry pick on in this area.

 

I have a copy of it, and had to study it to become a United States citizen. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. However, the ban of government respecting the establishment of religion (which we refer to as the separation of church and state), is clearly in the Constitution. It's unfortunate that naturalized citizens often know the US Constitution more than native born folks. </font>[/QUOTE]It is unfortunate that someone is indoctrinating naturalized citizens rather than educating them. The 1st Amendment does not ban government establishment of religion. It bans Congress from banning religion. By extension, you could rightly say that the Feds are banned from establishing a state sponsored religion (especially since the judiciary and executive branch now un-Constitutionally "make" more law than does Congress).

But your overall premise is false. Displays of religious material do not constitute an establishment of religion nor an inhibition of religious freedom. No religion is being outlawed. No sect is receiving public funding over against all others. No one is being coerced into abandoning their beliefs.

All that is happening is an offended, whining minority is attempting to thrust their religious intolerance onto the majority.

 

You don't think they are do you? They are seeking to establish precedence... then go after the rest.

 

I just have 4 words to say!

Praise be to God.



Dave

 

Probably. Personal offense is not unconstitutional.

No. "Praise be to God", "In God We Trust", and "Under God" acknowlege A creator. They do not endorse THE creator. Although, any monotheist (or even polytheists who believe in a supreme being over others) can acknowlege the God whom they believe in by use of the phrases.

Then fine. Let's remove them all. It's not Constitutionally necessary IMO, but if they were all removed, my personal Constitutionally guaranteed right to freely excercise my religion would not be usurped.

 

Oh please! What a copout. Anyone who disagrees with you has been "indoctronated". You've been watching too much D James Kennedy.

Congress in Amendment I referrs not simply to the Legislative Branch (Senate and House of Representatives). It referrs to the government in entirety.

If it were not so, then the President and SCOTUS would have the authority to endorse a State church. They do not. Amendment I applies to all government from the Federal to State, County, and Local. Alabama may not amend their constitution to adopt a State Religion. For that matter, neither may Montgomery, even though Montgomery doesn't have a freedom of religion clause in their charter.

There is one exception to that. Religious displays that are erected by the govermnent for the purpose of endorsing religion are constituting an establishment of religion, and as such, they violate the Establishment clause of Amendment I.

Not yet. I'm sure Judge Moore will be happy to do those next. He's already made statements that imply atheists in his courtoom should be wary. How scary is that?

Thankfully, the COnstitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority. But if this were simply a matter of offense, I'd tell everyone who's offended to stick in in their proverbial ears. But this is not about offense. This is about a violation of the Amendment I establishment clause.

 

Congress in Amendment I referrs not simply to the Legislative Branch (Senate and House of Representatives). It referrs to the government in entirety.[/quote][/qb] Thank you for demonstrating my point.

You have been convinced by someone of this last claim. It is none the less untrue. So if you learned it in the naturalization process, they are indeed indoctrinating and not educating. I have presented you with the facts of what the language says, I have shown you where state Constitutions address these same limitations to government on a state level, yet you insist that the words do not mean what they mean.

You have taken the logic of KJVO's on this issue. You are refusing to allow words to mean what they mean.

Regardless, the men who wrote the US Constitution knew very well the difference between Federal and State. They could have said government in general and DID NOT do so.

No thanks to your straw man. They are not supposed to be law making bodies. One is to interpret and apply law. The other is supposed to execute. The both fall under the limitations defined for Congress.

Then show me the language in that text that says this John. You accused me elsewhere of being ignorant and of superimposing my opinions on to the Constitution. The 1st Amendment says "Congress". As demonstrated above, that rightly applies to all federal powers. It does not say nor imply "state, county, or local."

Show me the text of the Constitution that says this and I will agree. Otherwise you are simply further demonstrating that you believe what someone told you the Constitution means over what it actually says... that is called indoctrination.

Another straw man. The Alabama Constitution is worded much differently. Besides that, the counties and municipalities are directly governed and defined by the states.

Here is the applicable portion of the Alabama Constitution, note that it does not specify state gov't nor the legislature:

There is one exception to that. Religious displays that are erected by the govermnent for the purpose of endorsing religion are constituting an establishment of religion, and as such, they violate the Establishment clause of Amendment I.</font>[/QUOTE] What religion is being established here John? Who has been coerced, persecuted, discriminated against, etc. by the presence of this monument? Who has had any of their rights, to include religious liberty, diminished or confiscated by this display?

So now you are a prophet... and you mocked me for saying secular humanism was becoming our official religion? I have evidence that this is in fact occuring each time religion is pushed out of the public venue.

Pretty scary if that is in fact what he implied but based on your extremely unfair and biased remark just previous, I would rather see a quote demonstrating this predisposition.

Thankfully, the COnstitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority. But if this were simply a matter of offense, I'd tell everyone who's offended to stick in in their proverbial ears. But this is not about offense. This is about a violation of the Amendment I establishment clause. </font>[/QUOTE]If you would simply cite your proof from the text of the Constitution, I would agree with you. But until you do, all we have is a religious display that violates the tenets of the proposed state religion- secular humanism.

Even some of your own statements support this, ie. it would be OK if it weren't done for religious purposes. In other words, let us police your thoughts to determine if something is OK or not. The display is either legal or illegal and the truth is not dependent on anyone's motivation.

Stealing is illegal regardless of the excuse as is every other legitimate violation of the law. Justice is blind or it is not justice.

 

I was just thinking. The strange part of this is that if someone really was trying to establish a state religion, I would be at least as strong in my opposition as is Johnv. If Moore indeed says that atheists cannot get justice in his court, I would support his removal under Alabama's Constitution.

I simply do not believe this monument constitutes an establishment of religion... no matter why it was put there.... not until someone attempts to limit someone else's religious freedom or denies them equitable consideration.

 

I learned that long before I became a citizen. I learned from my eighth grade history teacher. BTW, I attended a private Christian (Baptist) elementary school.

Then I guess the eight other judges that are on the bench with Judge Moore are all guilty of the same mistake. Come to think of it, I guess everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of the same mistake.

And they also knew the difference between State powers and individual freedoms. Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Assemply are not rights that States can take away from individuals. They are guaranteed federally, regardless of what State you're in. Your claim that States can limit or remove these rights from individuals is simply false.

And SCOTUS has interpreted Amendment I to apply to all government, as was the intent by the framers of the document.

 

Catholics and Jews are being denied consideration, because the Ten Commandments on display are the KJV Protestant commandments. Catholcs and Jews have them numbered slightly differently.

For example, The Jewish first commandment is "I am the Lord you God, who brought you out of the Land of Egypt". The second is: "You shall have no other gods in my presence, nor shall you make and idol for yourselves."

The First Commandment in Catholicism is "I am the Lord your God; You shall have no other gods before me, nor shall you make an idol for yourselves." Each commandment follows successively until the 9th, which is "You shall not covet the wife of your neighbor", and 10th, which is "you shall not covet your neighbor's belongings".

 

Have they petitioned Justice Moore to allow them to pay for and place a monument in the building? Has he denied that request? Has he said "This is the official version of the 10 Commandments for Alabama"? Has he said that their using a different version of the 10 Commandments makes them somehow lower in the eyes of the law?

 

Fine. Assign blame whereever you wish but if they taught you that "congress" = federal, state, and local government... they taught you an error.

They are doing what they believe is right by following the ruling of a higher court. Unfortunately, they are ignoring their first responsibility which is to uphold the law.

Why are you getting personal? For the record, my opinion means absolutely nothing to this case. What the Constitution says or doesn't say is all important. I am simply insisting that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says... and that the meanings of words, have meaning.

Then you should be able to find a state Constitution somewhere that doesn't contain guarantees of these rights. If they are in the state constitutions, I am at a loss as to why you think they are there for absolutely no purpose.

If they had meant for it to apply to all government, they would have stated it that way.

Interesting, since, according to this, Judge Moore violated the State Constitution.</font>[/QUOTE] Except that he did not attempt to establish a particular religion.

I already answered these questions in a previous post.</font>[/QUOTE] No John you didn't. You evaded. Answer these questions specifically if you can.

Here are my answers: No particular religion is being established. No one's rights are being infringed upon. Please prove me wrong if you can.

Now you are reading my mind John?

I know what secular humanism is and I am not engaging in McCarthyism any more than you are by implying that a religion is being established then not being able to prove it... but insisting that it is.

Secular humanism is religious in nature. Among other things, it adopts naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions and an agnostic view toward God. It presumes that all of man's problems as well as the answers to his questions can be solved by education, secular science, planning, training, organizing, etc. in accordance with the philosophy's suppositions. In short, it says that man and his intelligence has the answer. Even if God exists, He isn't really needed.

I suppose that was the attempt when "under God" and "In God We Trust" were added to the pledge and money, all done within the last 50 years.</font>[/QUOTE] No. It would have alot more to do with things like removing references to God and Christianity from text books, disallowing public prayer at government related functions like graduations/ball games, attempts to discriminate against groups that include evangelism in their treatment of the needy in receiving referrals, denials of University club funding to Christian groups because of their unique beliefs (supposed intolerance), attempts to deny Christian groups the use of public facilities like after hours schools,.... and, as in the case we are discussing, the refusal to allow public references to religion in the same vein as those that are on the US Supreme Court and the Washington Monument (which predate the last 50 years). When new things are erroneously labeled un-Constitutional, the offended will have a powerful precedence to demand the removal of older displays.

At a Christian rally in Tennessee in early 2002...</font>[/QUOTE] Where did your information come from?

And? What judge doesn't claim authority to do what they believe is in the best interest of the child in custody cases?

Interesting case though. If they judge had cited the opinion of a secular psychiatrist would you object? If someone's opinion of what is best for a child is based on moral beliefs derived from the Bible, how is that automatically inferior from a legal standpoint than if their moral beliefs are derived from the opinion of a human being? (case of secular humanism trumping Christianity in the public square?)

... or they might be after all. They will surely be challenged based on this precedence.

And governmental respecting the establishment of religion by the State is illegal regardless of the excuse. </font>[/QUOTE] Except that nothing Justice Moore has said or done prevents me from converting to Islam, Hinduism, or atheism.

 

Interesting you ask. I believe a Jewish group had applied for a commemoration, but was turned down. A group requesting a memorial to Martin Luther King was turned down as well, which is notable, since MLK was a prominent Alabama resident.

Now for us Californians, we usually commemorate famous folks by naming building after them. For example, the new federal courthouse in my area is the Ronald Reagan Federal Courthouse (Reagan was CA governor, and has been a prominent CA resident).

 

You're welcome to have your representative to propose a constitutional amendment to clarify the Amendment I definition. Until then, the SCOTUS has final say in the matter, and they agree with me.

That's the first time you've stated that. IMO, the constitution says what I already stated, and in has been interpreted by SCOTUS as such.

I don't say they're there for absolutely no purpose. When State constitution includes, and often repeats verbatim, rights protections that are already in the US Constitution, it allows the State to prosecute and determine those matters according to the State statute rather then having every rights violation go before federal courts. This gives the States a greater ability to enforce protection of those same rights. Items not spelled out in a State constition are still guaranteed Federally, but the States' ability to enforce preservation of those rights may often be limited.[/QUOTE][/qb]

 

Here's my question. Why has no one put the 1st Amendment up here for all of us to read?

Well, here it is.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Please, tell me what law Congress passed establishing a religion. Otherwise, you have no Constitutional argument. The Constitution says nothing about state courts putting the Ten Commandments in their buildings. In fact, unless a law is passed by Congress, the Federal government CAN LEGALLY ENDORSE any religion!!!!! The only thing is, they can not officially pass a law stating that the U.S.A. is any type of Theocracy.

There is nothing in the wording that says the government can't endorse a particular religion. There's nothing that says the government can't make monuments to our God.

As long as Congress does not pass a law requiring the Ten Commandments in all government buildings, I see absolutely nothing legally that anyone can do about it.

Of course, since when did silly legalities ever stop the courts in this country. After all, the Constitution is outdated anyway.

It makes me sick when people, especially justices sworn to uphold the law...AS WRITTEN...,begin to interpret things that aren't there. I think each judge should write their own Constitution. That way we could at least see where they are getting their interpretations from.

God Bless.(I hope none of our Muslim lurkers are offended by that)

Bro. James