So a group bringing a constitutional issue which concerns government intrusion into the private sector has “tiresome” arguments. I guess he feels someone seeking a stay of execution because of bad evidence or other reasonable claim has a tiresome argument because so many criminals have said they are innocent, too. Or really any defense against anything because he’s probably heard it all before. Or does this mean he decided the case before hearing it since he didn’t want to hear the same old arguments against how he ruled?
Either way, time to yank this judge’s robes off and give them to someone who isn’t so tired. And more “reasonable.”
Commandments display is upheld
A federal appeals court has upheld a display of the Ten Commandments alongside other historical documents in the Mercer County, Ky., courthouse.The judge who wrote the opinion blasted the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the display, in language that echoed the type of criticism often directed at the organization.
Judge Richard Suhrheinrich’s ruling said the ACLU brought “tiresome” arguments about the “wall of separation” between church and state, and it said the organization does not represent a “reasonable person.”
I find most legal proceding tiresome. Judges, lawyers, et all. Anyone who has sat in a courtroom can tell you that the smallest event can trigger hours of legal jargon. You would think a judge at that level would be used to it. Perhaps we need more “robust” judges. As for the argument, I think we will be having it for at least as long as people occupy the earth. Perhaps longer……do you think we can genetically augment judges to be less “tired” in the future?
It is on our money, “In God we Trust” this country was founded on beliefs of that God. Nothing will be able to change that, which is why everyone should still be able to say Merry Christmas!
PS – Merry Christmas Dvorak.
Interesting point I thought should be included-
While the opinion was written by one judge, specifically, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich it was signed by a second judge, Judge Alice Batchelder. There was also a third justice involved in the case, Judge Walter Rice, who did not join the opinion. It should be noted, however, that Rice did concur with the ruling.
What this means is that a three judge panel made a unanimous decision in the case and the opinion was not that of a single rouge justice.
It seems to me that if you are going to go on a witch hunt here, you should bring a few more stakes.
When are the Republicans going to stop these activist judges?
Hooray for straw men and fake culture wars! Merry Christmas to you too, UnlivedPhalanx, and please show me someone who says you can’t say that in public.
As for the article itself, yeah, “tiresome” isn’t a good legal justification, but it probably isn’t what he based the ruling on, just what the reporter picked out of it. I also think putting the Ten Commandments up with legal and government documents like the Bill of Rights is more questionable than putting it in a display with other religious symbols, but ultimately I don’t care all that much, just like I don’t care about “In God We Trust” on money or about “Under God” in the pledge. Ideally perhaps they shouldn’t be there, but can’t you find something more important to fight about? You’re just giving fodder to the right wing while fighting for something of little real world consequence.
1. The Ten Commandments are from the Torah and are therefore Jewish you antisemites.
2. The seperation of Church and State has become its own religion so therefore the ACLU should sue itself. I would pay to see that.
3. The ACLU is proof that Intelligent Design is false.
4. Without religion ya got no christmas. Without christmas ya got no capitalism. Without capitalism ya got no government. I say put more religion inta government and lower my taxes.
5. Let’s take all 15 of the guys who can’t deal with what the majority of Americans profess to believe and let them run the whole show, this is a demockracy after all.
6. Some of those who disagree with the Ten Commandments refer to the other 603, usually by pointing out that adulters should be stoned. I ask them, “So you know my first wife?”
7. “In God We Trust” is on our money. The founding fathers where all at the least Deists if not Christian, The constitution was based on Jewish/Christian foundations. So the Ten Commandments are historical. Duh.
8.Deconstructionism is dead, get over it.
9. Put up the creeds of every religion.
10. Australia would not let their citizens put “jedi” as a religious choice on the cenus. We think we got problems.
Dvorak bloggers: I wouldn’t get so up in arms about this. For one, many people on the ACLU’s side of this issue and similar issues seem to forget that “separation of church and state” does not actually appear in the Constitution. It’s a label for two parts: “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” There are a few important things to point out about this.
1) If a judge or whoever decides to put up the 10 commandments, how has he broken the law?
2) That means Congress can’t make a law denying judges to put up the 10 commandments because it recognizes that religion and prevents free exercise. only judicial decisions can affect that
3) It specifically says Congress, meaning the states are free to make laws about religion that don’t break federal laws or the constitution so long as the don’t require a “religious test” for any office or public trust
Technically, the prior cases where places were forced to take the 10 commandments down are wrong. The religion part of the constitution quoted above simply does not prevent them from being posted. I mean, it’s a free country and you can be against it if you want. Personally I don’t really like that they can be posted in public buildings. But I have yet to see a compelling argument that the Constitution prevents them from being posted. Feel free to source something that proves me wrong.
“1. The Ten Commandments are from the Torah and are therefore Jewish you antisemites.”
So early Muslims, Jews, and Christians all stole from the same sources. Big deal. What does that have to do with anything?
2. “The seperation of Church and State has become its own religion so therefore the ACLU should sue itself. I would pay to see that.”
Under that definition “religion” loses all meaning. Stick to real definitions, not the ones you make up.
“3. The ACLU is proof that Intelligent Design is false.”
Well, I have to agree that ID is false, in that it is clearly NOT a science.
“4. Without religion ya got no christmas. Without christmas ya got no capitalism. Without capitalism ya got no government. I say put more religion inta government and lower my taxes.”
Well, I don’t celebrate Christmas, my I celebrate Giftmas, so this is irrelevant. And by the way, having a celebration during the winter solstice was common WAY before Christianity reared its ugly head. You think those trees you drag into your house are based on Christian teachings?!
“5. Let’s take all 15 of the guys who can’t deal with what the majority of Americans profess to believe and let them run the whole show, this is a demockracy after all.”
Actually, atheists make up about 10 percent of the population. In parts of the country, non-believers age 16 through 35 make up 65%. In Europe, Asia, Australia, heck, everywhere else other than the Middle East and third world countries, atheists are the overwhelming majority. You may be in the majority here, but it’s declining, and overall scheme of things, you’re nothing.
And your view of Democracy would support slavery. I.e., the idea that the majority can control a minority against its will. But, then again, it was Christianity that led to and rationalized slavery in the US. So that’s not surprising.
“6. Some of those who disagree with the Ten Commandments refer to the other 603, usually by pointing out that adulters should be stoned. I ask them, “So you know my first wife?””
Instead of making a joke, why not explain why some commandments are followed and some are not. Was God wrong?!
“7. “In God We Trust” is on our money. The founding fathers where all at the least Deists if not Christian, The constitution was based on Jewish/Christian foundations. So the Ten Commandments are historical. Duh.”
God has only been on our money since the mid 1900s. And it simply does not matter whether the founding fathers believed. It’s what they wrote that matters. And they wrote that the US cannot establish a religion. You may feel that the US is a Christian nation, founded by Christians for Christians, but your opinion contradicts the Constitution. Since you also support our Idiot in Chief, you probably would have no problem tossing out the parts of the Constitution you don’t happen to support.
“8.Deconstructionism is dead, get over it.”
Then why are you using it?!
“9. Put up the creeds of every religion.”
Wouldn’t it be simpler to simply have no creeds posted?! Mmm… there are practically a bazillion forms of Christianity, let alone other religions. Exactly how big is this wall supposed to be?!
“10. Australia would not let their citizens put “jedi” as a religious choice on the cenus. We think we got problems.”
It sounds like Austrians are pretty smart when it comes to dealing with asinine ignorant religious nuts. I wish we were the same.
Do you have anything to say that makes sense?!
Richard, how is a judge putting up a list of religious doctrines in the court NOT establishing a religion?! If they have no meaning to the judge, then why post them. He’d only post them if he intends to follow them. Which means, he’s going to put that religious doctrine above the law. And any judge that ignores the fact that we’re a nation of laws, not of stone tablets, should be removed from the bench.
And don’t give me that BS that our laws were derived from the ten commandments, until you show me a law that won’t let me have graven images.
There’s very little separation between church and state.
The wall between church and state isn’t very high because it doesn’t need to be. It just needs to be strong. You could have a total separation of church and state. Before you build a wall, you have to decide if you want to keep something in or keep something out.
It’s all about money. Some group gets people worked up about the commandments or something, has a fund drive and raises $100,000 and gets busy filing papers in court complaining about this or that. Nothing gets built and the courts get stuck with all kinds of costs because the group has to be heard. Want to make money? Start a stop the ten commandments group, begin a fundraiser, write all sorts of opinions and enlist volunteers to do the work. Then you call it all not for profit and start another organization to fight about calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tree. People send money, because the Christmas tree is a threat to the trees or separation of nature and government. Tell the donors you are building a wall in the middle of the forest and chances are somebody will send money. People are actually killing trees in the name of Christmas. Save the trees, kill Christmas join the ACLU, donate now. I murdered a Scotch Pine.
It seems in this wacky world christians need to turn to the government for their religion and not their church. Christians also seem to want to turn public schools into christian schools. Are the christian schools not teaching the right religion? Next will be the conversion of democracy into theocracy. Welcome to free America, only if you are a christian.
Dvorak Reader — step back a moment and take a good look at your analysis in the context of American Realpolitik. Even if your premises govern a segment of political activity, the reality is that religious wingie-dingies stand a better chance of [1] fundraising and [2] getting away with profit by pretending to be a charity.
For example, take a close look at the disclaimers of the “Debt-Free” commercials you see every day on TV. It’s actually a not-for-profit “religion” using a for-profit subcontractor for services rendered. If you Google them, you’ll learn they’ve been investigated for previous scams — including hustling Romanian orphans.
But they’re Christian and fit the mold of all the TV hustlers using religion — so, no one in government is going to turn a hair over their hustle. Much easier than, say, trying to keep some corporate creeps from dumping their crud in the river running through your backyard.
Through no fault of my own, I come from Alabama, so I’ve been paying attention to Judge Roy Moore who first posted the Commandments in his courtroom then, upon election to the State Supreme Court, snuck in a huge stone monument to the Commandments to the rotunda of the court building.
I try to follow the Commandments; they strike me as a Good way to live. That said, I respect that there are those who don’t abide by the first four (no other God before me, observe the sabbath, etc.), and I respect those people’s beliefs.
To those who would have the Commandments posted as did Roy Moore, I ask this question: “How do you expect a Buddhist in Alabama to get a fair trial?”
I use that question as my litmus test. If the display sets up a bias, it shouldn’t be there. If it doesn’t, it’s Kosher. In this case? I don’t know enough details to decide – it’s close to the line to be sure.
I only see two commandments in our law – not stealing and not killing.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to have Hammurabi’s Code outside a courthouse. It is one of the earliest examples we have of a system of laws. You could make an arguement that our laws are based more on them then on the ten commandments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
I didn’t even do an analysis to be honest about it.
They’re digging a $400 million tunnel under the river in my backyard. It’s an alternative to 3 bridges that now cross the river. They did a hell of a lot of analysis, but most of the people I talk with believe the whole idea is nutty. I guess that’s why it’s federally funded. They dug a big tunnel up in Boston (The Big Dig) and the thing has some big leaks. I guess building walls underground is more difficult than it looks. The road to hell must go through a tunnel. A dark tunnel to be exact.
Eideard,
Some leaks are worse than others I guess.
imafish: wow, way to be a dick. Let me deconstruct this
“Richard, how is a judge putting up a list of religious doctrines in the court NOT establishing a religion?!”
Clearly you skimmed my post. I posted both of the parts of the Constitution about religion and nowhere does it say anything about establishing a religion. The clause in the bill of rights is referred to as the “establishment clause” but yet again I state it is referring to “Congress”. Since your post reeked of contempt, I’ll do the same and wonder if you know the difference between Congress and a judge. Congress is the House of Representatives and the Senate. Welcome to elementary school. You said what the founders wrote is most important. So how come the word “Congress” is not so important?
“If they have no meaning to the judge, then why post them. He’d only post them if he intends to follow them.”
And what about the fact that judges belong to political parties too? Does that mean they will only judge based on what their party thinks? It’s ridiculous to think any judge will not have many biases. You should judge a judge based on their performance, not based on their beliefs.
“Which means, he’s going to put that religious doctrine above the law.”
BREAKING NEWS: The amazing mindreading powers of imafish are revealed. To quote Dvorak: puh-lease.
“And don’t give me that BS that our laws were derived from the ten commandments, until you show me a law that won’t let me have graven images.”
See here’s what you turned into an ass. You start assuming things about me and what I believe. Oh and this comment: “and overall scheme of things, you’re nothing.” Way to be, man.
Yet again I state that I oppose the posting of the 10 Commandments, but that I do NOT see it as a constitutional issue, simply because the constitution does not have a clause that states it can’t happen. Courts have held in the past that displays should have a secular purpose and most recently (june) made it so that displays are handled on a case by case basis, and that mixed secular/religious displays can be acceptable. With my post I was trying to participate in the discussion particularly on the legal matters, but I guess that is frowned upon here.
“imafish: wow, way to be a dick.”
Wow, you don’t know me very well. I actually thought I was being pretty nice.
So, I guess under your interpretation of the Constitution courts CAN establish their own religions. This should be fun!
Thanks. I put a well thought out post in. You reply with a couple sentences and a quip.
I never said a damn thing about courts establishing their own religion, did I? Your one sentence in response to my post doesn’t even touch on what I was talking about. It’s like trying to carry an intelligent conversation with a 2 year old. Congrats Steve. You win at teh intarnets. Call up mom and let her know. She’ll be proud. In fact, you should print out these comments so that she can put them on the fridge. I give you an A for effort in your response.
To get that A+ though, maybe next time you should actually try to back up your statements. I backed up mine by referencing the constitution itself and the decisions of the US Supreme Court, but what the fuck do they know?
No matter what you believe, church and state are best taken in moderation. I guess it depends on your work and what works.
This subject is perfect for the professors and those who operate the world worry industry. I’m feeling fine, I’ve got good music on my radio and a fresh pecan pie on my table. I can’t complain. The big wheel keeps turning.
OK, Richard, let’s back up a bit. First you wrote:
“If a judge or whoever decides to put up the 10 commandments, how has he broken the law?”
I can assume from that, that you believe the judge did not break a law by posting religious doctrine on his court’s wall.
So, let’s move on… you then say:
“I never said a damn thing about courts establishing their own religion, did I?”
Mmmm… yes you did. You said it was legal for the judge to post religious doctrine in his Court. And as I explained, doing that would in fact establish a religion in the Court.
As I said before, you could attempt claim that the doctrine serves no religious purpose, but I’ll ask again. If they have no religious significance and no legal significance, why post them?
Clearly, the sole reason a judge would post them to establish to those in the room that he followed the doctrine.
Another Dvorak contest idea! What’s on your fridge door?
I have the following:
One big Santa held up with a big green clip from the carpenters union.
A little Snow Happens snowman magnet.
A magnetic $50 bill.
A Talon News fake $3 bill.
Two fridge magnets from the local public library.
A couple of slate cards from past elections.
A couple of pictures of the dearly departed.
I was going to be done with this, but you posed questions, so here goes.
“I can assume from that, that you believe the judge did not break a law by posting religious doctrine on his court’s wall.”
I don’t believe it is “right” to do so, but I haven’t seen any law broken by it.
“You said it was legal for the judge to post religious doctrine in his Court. And as I explained, doing that would in fact establish a religion in the Court.”
In your interpretation yes. The Supreme Court, however, has found cases where it is acceptable to do so. The courts have held that the establishment clause can be applied to all branches, but it’s usually in how the branches perform their duties, not in decorations or what they say. For instance, the President is sworn in with a bible and he speaks of God all the time. He probably has religious symbols in his office and in his White House. Should those be illegal as well because they clearly mean he’ll be leading by religion and not be the law? Yes, I am aware he DOES lead by religion, so don’t reply saying that. I think we all know he would lead that way regardless of what decorates his office. And that’s exactly what would happen for any judge that would make decisions based on their religion.
And in case anyone else thinks that judges can establish religions…
The “First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104, 89 S.Ct. 266, 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968)
“When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government’s ostensible object is to take sides.” McCreary County, Ky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky 125 S.Ct. 2722 U.S.Ky.,2005., relying on Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 335, 107 S.Ct. 2862, 97 L.Ed.2d 273 (1987)
By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government “sends the ··· message to ··· nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members ····’ ” Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 309-310, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000)
TWO MOUTH FISH STORY
A little off topic, but sort of interesting.
A rainbow trout pulled out of Holmes Lake last weekend had double the chance to get hooked: It had two mouths.
The fish has only one head. A guy from the game commission said, “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.” The guy who caught it said, “I’m going to smoke it up and eat it.” I wonder if he’ll broil it or fry it. You would think that the science people would want to study it or the guy would mount it on a plaque.
Judges can’t establish religion. Voters can establish judges.
Say you have a political fight for a seat on the court. Person one wants the seat. Person one has the backing of the a group of non-believers. They have a committee of 250 people. Person two is a church member. The church has 800 members, most of who vote. Guess who wins.
The big agenda is to have judges appointed at the local level. It’s all a part of the same nutty agenda. Eliminate religion, eliminate elections, eliminate voters, eliminate Christmas and let the expert rulers rule the land. The idea is that you can run a county court like they run a federal court and then eliminate the counties and states in favor of some corporate model which is more efficient. Next you can have one religion and one commandment and post it everywhere. The power of one. I kind of think if we voted the Supreme Court in, it would be more dynamic and responsive. I guess more democracy would harm the Supreme Court or something. One ain’t no fun.
Just a thought here- but I don’t think you want to have Supreme Court Justices elected to office. The idea of the Supreme Court is not to be responsive to the people- that is why we have Congress. The purpose of the courts is to oversee the other two branches of government and to ensure that they are acting within the limits set for them either specifically, in the Constitution orthrough the application of law.
The election of Supreme Court justices would necessarily eliminate the policital neutrality of judges (although one could argue that is already non-existant) as each Supreme Court candidate would have to pander to their respective support base.
If Supremem Court justices were elected, as opposed to be appointed, it would be entirely reasonable to think that we would still have segregation, especially in the context that Jim Crow law’s wouldn’t have been ruled unconstitutional and black people would have been hard pressed to vote.
Other major Supreme Court decisions would have been decided, not based on the application of the Constitution to the issues being presented, but rather on the political affiliation of the justice.
The United States Supreme Court is more like a kings bench than something belonging in a constitutional democracy. Our PA state supreme court is not appointed. We just vote one justice off of the bench. Then you have the LA judges appointing a judge, which is a new trend. The Louisiana Supreme Court has appointed an ad hoc judge to the Fourth Judicial District in Monroe. The additional judge will help the system move more efficiently according to politicians in LA. Elections aren’t really efficient, so let the good old boys pick and choose the judges.
Maybe we’ll have the ad hoc judges appointing more judges because it’s so efficient. Cousin Billy, I’m appointin’ you as a traffic court judge because I know you won’t let me down. You got that right Uncle Boss.
Whee! Another big culture fight, as expected! I shall restate my earlier position for the benefit of all those involved. Ahem.
Who.
Gives.
A Shit.
Little Timmy isn’t going to lose his faith if he doesn’t see Jesus in every storefront and say “under God” every day in the pledge. Little Johnny isn’t going to be forced to convert to Christianity because “In God We Trust” is on his money.
We have a war in Iraq. The financial state of this country is horrifying. We have scandals left and right amongst the people in power, including a president who may be flouting the law. You may disagree with that last one, but at least we’d be back to debating something of consequence. The environment. Gay rights. I’m sure the righties have their own laundry list too. Take your pick.
I know there’s big philosophical differences here, and it involves big things like the Constitution, but at the end of the day it doesn’t affect all that much. Just people on both sides being offended, just because. Suck it the fuck up. There are things going on here that affect people much more tangibly than just offending your idea of how the country should be.