Roy Moore announces candidacy in Alabama gubernatorial race

Johnv,

When the Government starts respecting or endorsing religion, even if that religion is yours, then the erosion process upon your right to free excercise thereof begins.

If that monument had remained, whose free exercise rights would have been violated? During the time it was there, was anyone's religious liberty violated?

Was free exercise endangered when Congress, appropriated funds for different Christian groups to send missionaries to the Indians? I don't recall that either Jefferson or Madison objected to it.

The problem with the "respecting" language of the First Amendment is that the strict separationist interpretation doesn't square with history. Another interpretation, consistent with that history is that the First Amendment prohibited Congress from enacting anything that had to do with a true establishment of religion, such that while they could not enact a national establishment neither could they touch the state establishments that existed. The Founders knew what an established religion was, many had opposed it before the Revolution and had opposed it afterward, especially in Virginia.

 

Would you have the same feeling of what I will describe as "harmlessness" if the monument was say Islamic or Hindi in nature?

 

"Would you have the same feeling of what I will describe as "harmlessness" if the monument was say Islamic or Hindi in nature"

If I lived in Saudia Arabia or India, I would find it quite natrual and would not object in the slightest.

 

G2C,

I'll see your challenge and raise you one: sure. Now explain how I would be harmed or even my free exercise impaired simply by the presence of such a monument.

 

Not at all. Moore's monument was placed for a primarily religious purpose, thuse respecting an establishment of relision, thus violating Amendment I.

You're right. It requires only the preventing of governmental respecting of an establishment of religion.

The intent ot the monument was religious in nature, and Moore said so publicly.

No it doesn't. In this case, it constitutioes a respecting of the establishment of religion. It should therefore go, and it did.

It did not. It had the KJV Protestant version of the Ten Commandments on the top, and the words from the DofI "The Laws of natuer and of Nature's God" on the side. It was clearly religions in nature, which Moore affirmed, and was hence a violation of Amendment I.

When the Government starts respecting or endorsing religion, even if that religion is yours, then the erosion process upon your right to free excercise thereof begins. </font>[/QUOTE]In this whole thing, Congress made no attempt to establish anything. The first ammendment is fully in tact and Moore is wrongly decided against. So it was religious in nature. Our history is steeped in religion. To deny a display of that heritage is wrong and unconstitutional.

 

The litmus test is intent. If the intent is primarily secular, then it's a permissible display. If the primary intent is religious, then it's not permissible. The number of phrases from other documents does not in and of itself define intent. In fact, SCOTUS struck down a display in a classroom where additional documents were added to an existing 10C display, citing that it did not change the intent. At the same time, they upheld another 10C display whose intent was primarily historical in nature. With the Alabame display, Moore stated publicly and clearly that the intent was religious in nature. So intent here wasn't even an issue of debate.

The 10C's are OT, which doesn't support you "hint of Christ" arguement. Likewise nonsupporting is the fact that SCOTUS has upheld other 10C displays. The fact is that no hint of intent to respect an establishment of religion will be tolerated by SCOTUS, and rightly so.

I don't know if you pick and choose what you hear, or is you simply don't have access to everything. In one of the 10C cases, the religious displays in the SCOTUS building were noted and recognized in the court's opinion, and in that opinion, it was cited that those displays aren't constitutionally forbidden (though, this was an opinion, not a ruling).

That's a blatant lie. I'm not threatened by such things at all. It is YOU, in fact, who is threatened by the very idea a religious display is constitutionally forbidden when its intend is respecting the establishment of religion. Are you so insecure in your faith that you require such displays by the government?

Yet another broadbrush by you. I could very easily say that slavery had been permitted by our givernment, and all of a sudden it was a threat? The bottom line is that some 10C displays are permissible, and some are not. A good percentage of the time, they're permitted to remain.

It is YOU who doesn't understand the constitution. Respecting an establishment of religion is not limited to establishing or funding a church or denomination. That's a Batronite fabrication. In fact, the Framers of the Constituion considered several other versions of Amendment I, some of which expressly said "Congress shall make no law establishing a state church". But they rejected all of them, in facor of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If the intent of the Framers were to simply outlaw a state church, they would have chosen a more suitable version of Amendment I. Bartonites overlook that fact.

 

The constitutional issue of free excercise is a different issue. The issue here is respecting the establishment of religion. A high court ruled that the monument violated the establishment clause.

The Constitution doesn't distinguish between any religion. If the monument had espoused a non-christian religion like Islam, or espoused Mormonism, or Catholicism, you'd be all over the establishment clause like white on rice. And you'd be right to do so, because the establishment clause forbids the respecting of the estblishment of any religion.

True, and SCOTUS has allowed many monuments to remain. Momuments that recognize religious heritage or religious history are, in fact, primary secular in nature, and thus allowed to remain, according to SCOTUS. Monuments that are primarily religious in nature, however, are not permitted. Moore's disaplay was primarily religious, not historical in nature, so it had to go. (SCOTUS also noted that a "primarily secular" display need not be devoid of religion entirely, and a "primarily religious" display need not be devoid of secular intent entirely. In the Moore monuemtent, the violation was clear in all aspects).

If SCOTUS was truly "anti 10C", then why do they allow many displays, and often prominent displays, to remain?

 

Johnv,

The constitutional issue of free excercise is a different issue. The issue here is respecting the establishment of religion. A high court ruled that the monument violated the establishment clause.

I had simply quoted you:

So my question remains:

If that monument had remained, whose free exercise rights would have been violated? During the time it was there, was anyone's religious liberty violated?

Respecting an establishment of religion is not limited to establishing or funding a church or denomination. That's a Bartonite fabrication.

I would ask that you be careful of the accusations. To the extent they're not true, they are equally fabrications. Believing the statement that you cited does not make one a Bartonite, nor does it make the position a fabrication. I have repeatedly made clear my distrust of Barton, that does not make invalid his belief, or that of many others in some sort of accommodation. Your ad hominiem arguments have no place when applied with your own broadbrush.

In fact, the Framers of the Constituion considered several other versions of Amendment I, some of which expressly said "Congress shall make no law establishing a state church".

You also have to look at the reasons they rejected some of the other versions. By not doing so, you're looking to make half the story the whole story. For example, when Madison proposed wording to the effect of prohibiting a national church, the reason it was voted down (actually, IIRC, he instead withdrew it) was not because that was contrary to their intent but because the word "national" raised their favorite bugaboo of consolidation.

By the way, whose version/proposal said "Congress shall make no law establishing a state church"?

[ October 11, 2005, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

I wasn't referring that monument as a specific. I probably should have been more clear.

However, I'm curious on your opinion: Do you think that it's okay for the government to respect or endorse a religion? And, do you think that such endoresement can leead to the erosion process upon your right to free excercise thereof?

Acknowleged. I would disagree, though, about his beliefs, since his beliefs are based upon revisionst history, and not on the fats of history. I don't question his intent, though. I think he somewhere got off the track.

On August 15, 1789: The Committee of the Whole (headed by Madison, and established to propose the Bill of Rights to the House) debated the freedom of religion clause. One of the suggestions made by Madison would have read "no national religion shall be established by law..."

That evolved into "Congress shall make no laws touching a national religion or infringing the rights of conscience."

The proposed draft was officially proposed as "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."

On Aug 20th, it was replaced with a proposed draft that read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

On Sep 3rd, it was replaced with a draft that read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

On Sept 9th, a new draft was proposed which read "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

The finanl draft approved by Conference Committee was "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The House of Representatives approved it on Sept 24th 1789, and the Senate followed the next day. It was ratified by the States in 1791.

After Jefferson was elected POTUS, the Danbury Baptists asked that he declare a national day of fasting in order to help the country recover from a bitterly fought presidential campaign. He disagreed, feeling that the Federal government should not recognize a day set aside for religious reasons.

His reply of Jan 1, 1802 read:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The "wall of separation" term has become a common expression to describe the constitutional concept of the government being forbidden from resepcting a religious establishment, and likewise from prohiting religious free exscercise.

 

"But they rejected all of them, in facor of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"."----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so tell me how Roy Moore caused congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion???

Intent....so the court is capable of mind reading now? I think all Moore said was that he was acknoledging God. If the words of these official documents lend themselves to this activity so readily and easily, why not, if they do it by there very nature. He did not put any personal words on the monument. He put sentences and paragrafs in context from our documents. I am not threatened by the words of the founding documents.

Please refrain from accusing me of lying. I have not told any blatant lies that I know of. I could be mistaken or wrong, but that is not a lie. I can handel it, I am a big boy, but I can't talk with you anymore if that is how you feel.

I feel you are threatened. You have admited as much. You assert we should feel insecure in our feedoms if a Ten Commandmant display such as Roy's is allowed. That is feeling threatened by definition. My point is that the Ten Commandments have commonly hung in courtrooms, schools, and Govenment buildings. And the INTENT was not simply historical. We obtained the free and enlightened state that we enjoy today even though this has been the common practice since our birth and throughout our growth. Yet now we are supposed to believe you that this practice is going to rob us of our freedom. It is simply illogical.

 

Johnv,

Do you think that it's okay for the government to respect or endorse a religion?

Sure I do, as long as there is no coercion involved. There's not much that I agree with Anthony Kennedy on, but I think he was at least on to something with his "coercion" test on Establishment Clause issues, though I think he applied it rather loosely in cases such as Lee v. Weisman. As most of the rest of them, though, I think he hinged a lot on the Lemon test. And by "endorse a religion", I think it is okay if done loosely, as in endorsing Christianity in general or in appropriating funds to not favor an individual denomination, as in Congressional aid to various religious missions to the Indians. None of these things are anything close to an establishment of religion such as the Founders faced and as they left in England. It is that from which they were trying to protect us.

And, do you think that such endorsement can lead to the erosion process upon your right to free excercise thereof

Can it? If that alone is done? How would, no, how could it? How could a simple endorsement infringe on my religious liberty? I expect the key is in the "lead to" part of the question. If you're talking about a progression of events, there are a few problems:

1) such a progression is not built into an endorsement;

2) there is nothing inevitable about such a progression;

3) at the point where religious liberty is impaired, it would be a far step from endorsement, such a distance that I think it obviously not a part of the endorsement;

4) at the point where religious liberty is infringed, there are protections built into the system that are not there to "protect against" endorsement: (a) various state constitutional guarantees, (b) the First Amendment to the extent that the Supreme Court interprets it as binding against the states through the 14th Amendment (however right or wrong that interpretation may be), and (c) such a violation would sound alarm bells of opposition.

BTW, thanks for the various First Amendment proposals. I'm sorry to put you through those, as I'm somewhat familiar with them, was just wondering about the particular language you cited which was not amongst them. Is clear now you were speaking in terms of the meaning of the proposals and not a specific quote.

 

The monument was erected for a primarily religious purpose. SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that such monuments vioate the establishment clause. You're welcome to ask them.

 

Apparently they err. The Supreme Court has apparently come to believe they are the supreme branch of government. Able to morph the Constitution at will. This is Moore's whole Point in taking a stand.

 

I wasn't aware that things like intent and motive were new in the justice system. They have existed in legal concepts for 200 years without the need to read minds.

If that were the case, I'd be on his side. Moore said in effect that governmental acknowleging of God is mandatory. Also of note is that taxpayers paid for that monument at Moore's authorization, yet Moore denied requests for other monuments (to be privately funded) in the rotunda. Additionally, this display goes beyong simply acknowleging God. Since its purpoise was primarily religious in nature, by Moore's own affirmation, it's a recognition of a specific religious establishment: KJV protestantism. The display expressly excludes Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, all of whom recognize the Ten Commandments, but not in the order or division displayed on the monument.

Okay, I believe you are mistaken.

I am not threatened in the least. I have no problem with governmental displays that have religious context. I only have a problem with governmental displays, or any other expressions, that are a respecting of the establishment of religion.

No, I pondered why some Christians are so insecure about their faith that they need the government to endorse their religion?

But that's not the point. The issue with moore was not a display. It was purpose of the display. The purpose was to respect an establishment of religion. Hence, that specific monument was illegal.

So long as the primary intent is not religious, then such displays are permissible.

Not illogical at all. It is the right of the individual to respect the establishment of religion. It is not the right of government. If the government starts doing this, then the right ot the individual to do this becomes infringed. This is true regardless of what one's religion is.

 

Well, whether you think it's okay for the government respect or endorse a religion or not, the fact is that Amendment I makes it rxpressly illegal. You mentioned coersion, but I truly wonder if a Christin will evern feel coerced if the religious actions of the government happen to coincide with the Christian religion. If this was an issue over the Five Pillars of Islam, or the Four Noble Truths, and a judge saying that those displays should be allowed because he felt it necessary to acknowleg God through their diaplay, my arguements would be the same. I don't want the government respecting the establishment of those religions either.

It was no problem at all. This has actually been an enlightening and respectful conversation, and I appreciate the discussion.

 

"I wasn't aware that things like intent and motive were new in the justice system. They have existed in legal concepts for 200 years without the need to read minds."-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intent is SOMETIMES an element in the legal definition of a crime. In this case he used nothing but historic documents, so they had to guess at the intent above and beyond recognizing God, which has always been commonplace in our government.

"The display expressly excludes Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, all of whom recognize the Ten COmmandments, but not in the order or division displayed on the monument. "---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You forgot Rostafarians, Rosacrucians, Satanist and that Group who wanted to hitch a ride on the comet Hale Bop. Is there enough Marble in the world????

(Johnv, I hope you will indulge my use of satire to make my point)

 

Incorrect. In fact, SCOTUS refused to hear the Moore case, leaving it in the hands of the lower federal courts to hear. The 10C cases that scotus heard, where they upheld the displays, were heard long after Moore's incident.

Vermont is rich in marble deposits, some of the best in the world next to India marble, I might add.

 

The Supreme court is the final Authority in that it sets the precedents by hearing a case or deferring. The buck stops with them.

 

Oh, no, Moore made it abundantly clear in numerous public appearances that the monument's intent was so. That's what the crux was here.

Vermont is rich in marble deposits, some of the best in the world next to India marble, I might add. Now, the ONLY reason I know this is because I was just pricing new countertops. I wanted marble, and got sticker shock. I opted for solid surface material, btw.

 

Incorrect. In fact, SCOTUS refused to hear the Moore case, leaving it in the hands of the lower federal courts to hear. The 10C cases that scotus heard, where they upheld the displays, were heard long after Moore's incident.