Completely uncontroversial benign topic

[Atticus]

United States Constitution, Amendment I, in part:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

= complete separation of church and state

 

 

 

I unfortunately made the mistake of leaving the mp3 player at home this morning and therefore encountered local talk radio, the subject of which was the 5th Circuit upholding of a lower-court decision (from Sim Lake, the same judge who presided over the Lay/Skilling trial) requiring the removal of a monument/structure containing a bible from the outside front of a now-defunct court building in downtown Houston.

 

I don't have a problem with Americans who hold the opinion that our laws should provide that the government cannot promote religion in any manner. I do have a problem with the freakish double-jointed judicial construct that has somehow accomplished turning the above phrase into something that it clearly is not--a complete separation of church and state and/or prohibition against the promotion of religion by any hand of government.

 

Thoughts?

[Dude]

I disagree completely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What were we talking again?

[c53x12]

They don't have radio stations with music where you live?

[Atticus]

What were we talking again?

 

The proposition that all Christians are evil hypocritical zealots who wish to impose their beliefs on America.

 

Wait, no, that's not it.

 

That all agnostics and aetheists are evil hypocritical Christian-haters.

 

hell, I can't remember.

 

They don't have radio stations with music where you live?

 

If you favor latino accordian/polka-based music or top 40 country, then yes, yes they DO have radio stations with music where I live.

[cryptique]

Not the "best-dressed member of Wilco" thread I was expecting.

[Atticus]

Not the "best-dressed member of Wilco" thread I was expecting.

 

I don't like to meddle in those controversial waters.

[owl]

I guess we should establish why it's necessary in the first place to display an endorsement of a particular religion's philosophy on government property?

 

I think we should just avoid it altogether. Isn't your freedom of speech enough to allow you to promote your religious philosophy or quote your holy book? Why does it need to be government sanctioned?

 

What if someone instead wanted to put a quote from the Koran about "killing the infidels" at the same government building? How do you think you would react? I have a feeling that more Christians would be up in arms about that, compared to the number of people who disapprove of the Ten Commandments display.

 

I say: allow nothing- not Christian, Bhuddist, Islam, or anything, and you avoid a much bigger controversy. That way, your appear to favor to or alienate nobody- and leave the policy-making up to the rule of law.

[Elixir Sue]

United States Constitution, Amendment I, in part:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

= complete separation of church and state

 

 

 

I unfortunately made the mistake of leaving the mp3 player at home this morning and therefore encountered local talk radio, the subject of which was the 5th Circuit upholding of a lower-court decision (from Sim Lake, the same judge who presided over the Lay/Skilling trial) requiring the removal of a monument/structure containing a bible from the outside front of a now-defunct court building in downtown Houston.

 

I don't have a problem with Americans who hold the opinion that our laws should provide that the government cannot promote religion in any manner. I do have a problem with the freakish double-jointed judicial construct that has somehow accomplished turning the above phrase into something that it clearly is not--a complete separation of church and state and/or prohibition against the promotion of religion by any hand of government.

 

Thoughts?

Here's a thought: the judicial branch gets to say "what the law is." See Marbury v. Madison (1803).

 

Religious displays at courthouses (or other government property) tend to suggest an entanglement between the government and religion that Thomas Jefferson (and others) sought to avoid. I don't have a problem with that.

[Dude]

Why didn't they just blowtorch the bible off the statue? Or remove the embossed "BIBLE" letters and replace it with "NONDENOMITIONAL RELIGIOUS TEXT"?

[Sir Stewart]

How about everyone shuts the fuck up, everywhere, forever.

[Elixir Sue]

How about everyone shuts the fuck up, everywhere, forever.

Okay...you first.

[Atticus]

I guess we should establish why it's necessary in the first place to display an endorsement of a particular religion's philosophy on government property?

 

I think we should just avoid it altogether. Isn't your freedom of speech enough to allow you to promote your religious philosophy or quote your holy book? Why does it need to be government sanctioned?

 

What if someone instead wanted to put a quote from the Koran about "killing the infidels" at the same government building? How do you think you would react? I have a feeling that more Christians would be up in arms about that, compared to the number of people who disapprove of the Ten Commandments display.

 

I say: allow nothing- not Christian, Bhuddist, Islam, or anything, and you avoid a much bigger controversy. That way, your appear to favor to or alienate nobody- and leave the policy-making up to the rule of law.

 

 

Here's a thought: the judicial branch gets to say "what the law is." See Marbury v. Madison (1803).

 

Religious displays at courthouses (or other government property) tend to suggest an entanglement between the government and religion that Thomas Jefferson (and others) sought to avoid. I don't have a problem with that.

 

 

All fair points. But again, the point is not what the law should say, rather what it does say. Courts are given leeway to interpret the law, but are not vested with the authority to create laws.

[Sir Stewart]

Okay...you first.

[Atticus]

Here's a thought: the judicial branch gets to say "what the law is." See Marbury v. Madison (1803).

 

from the case you linked:

 

"The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. [5 U.S. 137, 179] Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?"

[SlowBurn68]

I love making fun of peoples stupid religious beliefs. God bless.

[Elixir Sue]

from the case you linked:

 

"The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. [5 U.S. 137, 179] Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?"

Followed immediately by: "This is too extravagant to be maintained. In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges."

 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say...

[LouieB]

Not the "best-dressed member of Wilco" thread I was expecting.

I wanted to talk about Jeff Tweedy's former beard.....

 

LouieB

[jenbobblehead]

I need a cigarette after all this hot law talk.

[cryptique]

I need a cigarette after all this hot law talk.

Love the alias. Do we know you?

[Atticus]

Followed immediately by: "This is too extravagant to be maintained. In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges."

 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say...

 

 

That the language of the first amendment is not murky (this section of it anyway...). It clearly addresses Congress passing laws. How can one move from that to a blanket separation of church and state?

 

I tend to agree that it would serve the nation best for the constitution to comprehensively address such a separation. I'm merely pointing out that it does not.

 

The point of Marbury v. Madison is that the Court has an obligation to decide cases in accordance with its mandate from the constitution, and that Congress cannot subvert that process or change the constitutional mandate through the passing of legislation.

[Analogman]

Some folks down the road from here just raised 150, 000 dollars to fight the folks trying to get the white guy looking JC painting taken off the wall at the local high school.

[Dude]

I say we get rid of that freaky pyramid / eye thing on the U.S. dollar while we're at it.

[Atticus]

I say we get rid of that freaky pyramid / eye thing on the U.S. dollar while we're at it.

 

 

Damn the Illuminati!!!

 

I shouldn't have ever borrowed Angels & Demons by Dan Brown.

[cryptique]

I say we get rid of that freaky pyramid / eye thing on the U.S. dollar while we're at it.

Let's also enact a ban on any sports franchise ever referring to themselves as "America's Team."

 

 

 

 

 

# 1 reason why I will always hate the Dallas Cowboys.

[Atticus]

Let's also enact a ban on any sports franchise ever referring to themselves as "America's Team."

# 1 reason why I will always hate the Dallas Cowboys.

 

As a former citizen of Dallas, Texas, for almost 10 years, I wholeheartedly endorse your idea.