Judge allows Ten Commandments monument

[AlonzoMourning23]

OKLAHOMA CITY — A federal judge on Friday said a Ten Commandments monument outside a courthouse can stay, rejecting arguments that it promotes Christianity at the expense of other religions.

U.S. District Judge Ronald A. White in Muskogee ruled that Haskell County did not violate the Constitution by erecting the monument. The county did not "overstep the constitutional line demarcating government neutrality toward religion," he wrote.

The county argued that the monument outside the Stigler courthouse was part of a historical display that included other monuments recognizing war veterans, the Choctaw Tribe and others. The Ten Commandments monument has the Mayflower Compact etched on the other side.

"A significant factor is that someone comes and looks at all the monuments on the lawn, they can't just single out the Ten Commandments monument and say, `Ah ha!' and that means government is impermissibly endorsing religion," said Kevin Theriot, an attorney for the Haskell County commissioners.

Micheal Salem, an attorney representing the American Civil Liberties Union and Stigler resident James W. Green, said he thought "the court's decision really represents a loss for religious freedom." He said he would have to thoroughly review White's decision before deciding whether to appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that religious displays on government property are not inherently unconstitutional and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4127199.html

[dsanthony]

Good. A bit of reason standing against the dogmatic ACLU crowd.

[AlonzoMourning23]

What reason is that?

[Mayberry]

What reason is that? That looking at a monument is not going to kill you, stunt your growth, or cause you undue pain and suffering. If you don't like it, don't look at it. I despise people celebrating Cinco de Mayo in America, but you don't see me crying to the ACLU about it. I just ignore it.

[dsanthony]

There is no right in the constitution to never be offended by another's ideas.

Furthermore, Washington and others knew that a "public religion" was essential to the well-being of society. Not a theocracy, but an allowance for public expressions of religion.

[AlonzoMourning23]

It is government endorsement of particular religious views. That's unconstitutional.

And public expression of religion is there, but actions that would exclude other religions (ie. public prayer and most monuments to a certain faith) is religion supporter by the government.

I don't support either, but would you be comfortable with a large islamic crescent situated on a the entrance of a court house as the sole religious reference in the building?

[dsanthony]

If the crescent were in a state or city with an 85% or so majority of muslims, sure. Get off your high horse and stop imagining that you are pure and everyone else is a raging homophobe racist bigot.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Get off your high horse and stop imagining that you are pure and everyone else is a raging homophobe racist bigot.


I have no idea where homosexuality was mentioned here, and I haven't call you a racist. A bit sensitive?

Though if the government can create no laws respecting the establishment of religion, how is that compatible with allowing religious symbols simply when it is the religion of the majority, not the minority? If the ten commandments is fine, why not a crescent?

[dsanthony]

there are many varied public displays of religions of every shade. But, the fact is, 85% of Americans consider themselves christian.

I know your dogmatic lies. You and fellow weak libs see yourselves as the protector of your PC code and paint everyone who disagrees with you as homophobic, racist and bigoted. Look in the mirror and stop passing third-grade insults.

[AlonzoMourning23]

But, the fact is, 85% of Americans consider themselves christian.

That is irrelevent.

I know your dogmatic lies. You and fellow weak libs see yourselves as the protector of your PC code and paint everyone who disagrees with you as homophobic, racist and bigoted. Look in the mirror and stop passing third-grade insults.

So wait, you're the only one insulting someone and yet you tell me to stop making insults? :rolleyes:

Can you actually comprehend what I'm asking, or do you just add various things to my posts since I'm liberal and therefore you must have missed where I said a bunch of stuff I never said?

You're paranoid. I haven't insulted you, and I've never called you a racist.

[Mayberry]

I don't support either, but would you be comfortable with a large islamic crescent situated on a the entrance of a court house as the sole religious reference in the building?

They could have a crescent, a Star of David, or whatever. I don't really care. Our courthouse in Corpus Christi has the ten commandments out front, and nobody is whining about it. Of course this city is probably 90% Catholic/Baptist.

[bobbylien]

I don't see the big deal honestly. If that religion is a part of the history of that area and the monument has been up for over 30 years, let it be. Its not hurting anyone, this country has many bigger issues to deal with. This is about a few people trying to force their opinions about religion on others. I say let the people in the area vote to decide. Things like this only give fuel to the religious right. That alone should be enough to just leave these monuments alone.

[T.J. Wolfe]

If Hungary can have a bridge named after Chuck Norris, I see no wrong in having a monument of the Ten Commandments.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The issue is it gives the appearance of judeo-christian favoratism and calls into question the impartiality of the court in issues dealing with non christians. It's the endorsement of one religious system among many.

[Rider]

The Constitution prohibits the Congress from passing any law establishing a state religion. That's pretty simple really.

[dsanthony]

Rider, why do you keep bringing facts into the discussion?

[T.J. Wolfe]

I don't see any reason why he wouldn't.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The Constitution prohibits the Congress from passing any law establishing a state religion. That's pretty simple really.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Now, how strictly do you take that? Is it the government that can't do that, or simly the congress? If it's the latter, then could states establish a state sanctioned religion?

[Technocrat]

I don't believe the government should appropriate money to build or fund something religions. I am not religious. I don't want my (nor do many others) want their money going to something we aren't even allowed to fund.


The "congress" bit at first did only apply to the Federal government, but not anymore as per the inclusion policy. When the Constitution was made, that amendment never applied to the states.

Most of the Bill of Rights didn't. Now it does. It has for quite some time. 70+ years.

It's not just about creating a specific state religion either. The provison clearly has dual meaning. The Founding Fathers wrote an amphibolous statement. It both means the government cannot establish an offical religion as well as play fund-the-religion games, since that is de facto as good as establishing religion. You are paying taxes. If the government funds religious activities, programmes, you might as well be supporting alternative religions to which you are opposed.

"Make no respecting an establishment of Religion" clearly can mean "dealing with/paying heed to a religion in specific" or "honouring, specializing, or favouring a religion." Pumping money into Christian monuments counts certainly as that. If a private individual wants to buy his own monument and put it on his personal lawn, fine. Putting it on the court house gives it a respect it doesn't deservein American government, or at least it gives the impression that the United States judicary is a "Christian" system.

Contrary to popular opinion, there really IS a wall betwixt government and religion. Although it's not directly stated word for word inthe Constitution, that's what the Establishment clause means. The exact phrase "wall of speration" as well as many other anti-christian phrases, can be found word for word in the writings of Madison and other Founding Fathers on their intent in making the Establishment Clause.

Conservatives usually like to harken back to whateve the Founding Fathers said, did, or liked, but they oddly seem to skip this one. In actuality, there's no interpretation necessary. We know exactly what the FF's wanted.

[Rider]

Gee wiz Techno, thanks for clearing all that up for us! That's been thorn in our sides for a couple of centuries. Now it's all so clear.

[Technocrat]

Gee wiz Techno, thanks for clearing all that up for us! That's been thorn in our sides for a couple of centuries. Now it's all so clear.


Glad to be of service. You're entirely welcome. ;)

It really is that simple. Christians tend to overcomplicate simple issues to confuse people.