Support NeoGAF

[WedgeX]

DeLay says U.S. need not separate church, state
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said today there is no constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state as the Supreme Court prepared to take up a case challenging the display of the Ten Commandments on the Texas Capitol grounds.
ADVERTISEMENT

"I hope the Supreme Court will finally read the Constitution and see there's no such thing, or no mention, of separation of church and state in the Constitution," said DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land.

The First Amendment of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Some argue the amendment prohibits activities such as prayer in school and the Ten Commandments monument at the Texas Capitol. But others interpret it more narrowly, saying the founding fathers intended it to prohibit the government from setting up a single denomination as the country's official religion.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to consider whether the 6-foot granite monument on the Capitol Grounds -- bearing the words "I am the Lord thy God" and the commandments -- and two Ten Commandments displays at Kentucky courthouses constitute unconstitutional government establishment of religion.

Several groups were expected to rally outside the Supreme Court for and against removing the monument.

Supporters of keeping the monument on the Capitol grounds say the traditions of Western law are rooted in the Ten Commandments.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who will argue his first case before the high court, said the monument should be considered in the context of how it is displayed.

It is one of 17 on the Capitol grounds and is located at the back of the Capitol near the state's Supreme Court building. He said the monument honors its donors, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, and is not stamped with a state seal.

"This is something that is not being endorsed by Texas, but it is like most other displays on the Texas Capitol grounds reflective of honoring the group or entity that donated the monument," he said.

The monument was first placed on the Capitol grounds in 1961.

The plaintiff opposed to its display, Thomas Van Orden, said in his written arguments that the monument was put in storage in 1990 while the Capitol was being restored. It was returned in 1993 and placed in a more prominent location, while other monuments were not replaced.

"There is not indication that the state's goal in 1993 was to honor the Fraternal Order of Eagles," his court filing says. "The state has given no reason to this court to doubt that the state put the monument back, and in a prominent place, because of the state's desire to express the content of the monument, the Ten Commandments."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3063337

Interesting.

 

[kumanoki]

If by 'interesting' you mean 'fvcking retarded'.

 

[WedgeX]

If by 'interesting' you mean 'fvcking retarded'.

Yes, yes I do.

 

[Crandle]

I suppose he could be right...if you believed that the ABSOLUTE LITERAL TEXT of the Constitution was all that mattered. But no judge with principles (not even a conservative one like Scalia) believes that to be the case; at the very least Founders' intent is accounted for, and of course there are many who believe in all that "living tree" stuff. Now, "Founders' intent" can be interpreted with various tenable views in some cases, BUT

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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.

this one seems pretty goddamn clear-cut.

 

[Shogmaster]

If by 'interesting' you mean 'fvcking retarded'.

Can I say A-FUCKING-MEN to that? Can I? :lol

 

[kumanoki]

this one seems pretty goddamn clear-cut.

Why can't our leaders sound like this today? Why? Why?!!

 

[xsarien]

I suppose he could be right...if you believed that the ABSOLUTE LITERAL TEXT of the Constitution was all that mattered. But no judge with principles (not even a conservative one like Scalia) believes that to be the case; at the very least Founders' intent is accounted for, and of course there are many who believe in all that "living tree" stuff. Now, "Founders' intent" can be interpreted with various tenable views in some cases, BUT



this one seems pretty goddamn clear-cut.

Don't you know that Thomas Jefferson was obviously a liberal, America-hating, French-loving terrorist?

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I'm glad he see it my way. I'm going to post a Mosque in his district and then get Microphone for the Friday call for prayer. Let's see how long he is for the non-seperation of Church and State after that.

I give him one week.

 

[Crandle]

The last major candidate to have even a fairly similar philosophy to Jefferson and other classical liberals was Goldwater, and he got his ass whipped by LBJ

=(

edit: heh, Jefferson actually was a big Francophile, funnily enough...

 

[Celicar]

Who would have thought GAF would be against this???!? :lol :lol

 

[ConfusingJazz]

The last major candidate to have even a fairly similar philosophy to Jefferson and other classical liberals was Goldwater, and he got his ass whipped by LBJ

=(

That was more the fault of his views on how to stop the spread of communism.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue..."

The man was a bit like Dubya in his view of the military, which would strike a clear difference between Goldwater and Thomas "standing armies are the mark of tyrannies" Jefferson.

 

[Crandle]

That was more the fault of his views on how to stop the spread of communism.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue..."

The man was a bit like Dubya in his view of the military, which would strike a clear difference between Goldwater and Thomas "standing armies are the mark of tyrannies" Jefferson.

This is true, but he would've had better policy in Vietnam (perhaps even pulling out) and to his immense credit later admitted that escalating was a bad idea. And of course he wasn't a utopian neocon.

The really important thing is that on social issues and smaller government he was 1000 times better than the current Republicans. Any Senator who recommended that Falwell get "a boot in the ass" gets INFINITY RESPECT POINTS from me.

 

[AntoneM]

I see no problem iwth allowing the Ten Comandment to be on disply on public lands, as long as they also allow people to donate and erect monuments related to Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Buddhism... and so on.

I should mention that I'm ok with it as long as it doesn't come from public funds ie: my fucking tax dollars.

 

[FoneBone]

Who would have thought GAF would be against this???!? :lol :lol

Who would have thought you'd be dumb enough to be for it? :lol :lol

Still think you're a joke character, though.

 

[ge-man]

I see no problem iwth allowing the Ten Comandment to be on disply on public lands, as long as they also allow people to donate and erect monuments related to Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Buddhism... and so on.

Of course, that in itself will become a problem. This is a box of trouble that legislators should not even bother to open.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Of course, that in itself will become a problem. This is a box of trouble that legislators should not even bother to open.

Like I said I think they should go for it and see how far people really want to go with freedom of religion.

 

[Mike Works]

Who would have thought GAF would be against this???!? :lol :lol

oh LOL

How about you list some reasons as to why ANYONE should be for this?

You've got until midnight.

 

[whytemyke]

I'm sure hoping Tom Delay isn't a lawyer, because if he was he'd know the legal precedents leading up to this case that have been going on for a hundred years. The entire thing violates the establishment clause, as the most recent ruling said (i believe it was in chicago). You know, that whole bit about "the government shall not establish..."

 

[olimario]

He interprets the constitution differently than you do. A statue isn't a law respecting an established religion... It's just a statue. The 10 Commandments aren't US laws respecting an established religion.

I don't see the problem. If somebody wanted to put up a statue of Muhammed with some of his quotes on it, more power to them. It is a free country and they can believe whatever they choose. Just because they put up a statue doesn't mean there is magically a law in place that respects Islam or forces me to believe it.

 

[shoplifter]

I don't see the problem. If somebody wanted to put up a statue of Muhammed with some of his quotes on it, more power to them.

Sure let people have free reign to do it, then lets see how long it takes the "crazy christians" to bitch about the statues to fertility goddesses, satan and vishnu. I promise you they'll be the first to do so.

 

[Diablos]

Why does the country want to take a step backwards in just about everything? Why?
*bangs head off desk* If we end up not needing seperation of church and state, this country really WILL be Jesus land.

 

[olimario]

Sure let people have free reign to do it, then lets see how long it takes them to bitch about it.

And that's another thing... People have the freedom to bitch their bitchy heads off... Right to fucking protest. That doesn't mean that what they're protesting against is unconstitutional, because clearly a statue is not.

If they want it to become unconstitutional they need to channel that bitchyness into motivation for writing up a bill, sending it to a congressmen, and having him present it where it needs to be presented.

And I think people who do bitch about this stuff are abso-fuckinglutely-batshit crazy. You have the right to believe what you beleive. If you're upset that somebody put up a statue of another religion, get the permission and the funds to put up your own. You have that right.

 

[Kobun Heat]

So, where do you guys draw the line? Would you object to, say, a Merry Christmas sign and a Santa display in a public hospital? A nativity scene?

 

[olimario]

So, where do you guys draw the line? Would you object to, say, a Merry Christmas sign and a Santa display in a public hospital? A nativity scene?

What's the problem? THe constitution seems pretty clear on the fact that the government isn't to enact any laws respecting a religion. A nativity scene isn't a US law respecting a religion... It's a manger with some sheep and a baby.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

The 10 Commandments aren't US laws respecting an established religion.

The thing is, how do you think those commandments got on the lawn of the capital? You don't just build a giant granite statue of holy texts and then place it on the capital because you feel like it, you have to apply to .... the legislature! They fund and approve of every monument and statue on the capital.

It's a manger with some sheep and a baby.

Yeah...baby Jesus, whats so religious about that?

 

[peedi]

So, where do you guys draw the line? Would you object to, say, a Merry Christmas sign and a Santa display in a public hospital? A nativity scene?

I'm opposed to any state sanctioned proselytization. I'd say that Christmas, its origins notwithstanding, is a universal celebration with little if any religious undertones.

 

[olimario]

The thing is, how do you think those commandments got on the lawn of the capital? You don't just build a giant granite statue of holy texts and then place it on the capital because you feel like it, you have to apply to .... the legislature! They fund and approve of every monument and statue on the capital.

Law. Law. Law. Law.
A rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

There is no law in place that says Christianity is TOPS! No law that says Christianity is really cool! No law telling people they need to follow it and no law strongly urging people to follow it.

Approving a statue is hardly creating a law respecting a religion. I think people are stretching this straightforward statement too far.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Approving a statue is hardly creating a law respecting a religion. I think people are stretching this straightforward statement too far.

You seem to think the statue is just a statue with wings or something. The statue says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", I believe thats about as straightforward as you can get.

 

[olimario]

You seem to think the statue is just a statue with wings or something. The statue says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", I believe thats about as straightforward as you can get.

It's not a US law. The statue stating such a thing doesn't magically create a law saying that everyone has to put The LORD JESUS CHRIST first in their life.

 

[whytemyke]

no. but it does establish religion on federal property.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

no. but it does establish religion on federal property.

State property, but thats beside the point...

 

[olimario]

no. but it does establish religion on federal property.

And that's okay. It's constitutional. Muslims can congregate on that property around the statue and practice their religion openly with no consequence.

 

[Monk]

oh LOL

How about you list some reasons as to why ANYONE should be for this?

You've got until midnight.

I dont see whats wrong with it as long as the majority agrees with it.

 

[Hitokage]

He interprets the constitution differently than you do. A statue isn't a law respecting an established religion... It's just a statue. The 10 Commandments aren't US laws respecting an established religion.

I don't see the problem. If somebody wanted to put up a statue of Muhammed with some of his quotes on it, more power to them. It is a free country and they can believe whatever they choose. Just because they put up a statue doesn't mean there is magically a law in place that respects Islam or forces me to believe it.

Do not, under any circumstances, confuse the right of citizens with the power of government. Government must remain religiously neutral to ALL so that ALL CITIZENS may enjoy freedom of religion.

I dont see whats wrong with it as long as the majority agrees with it.

Madison would BEG to differ.

 

[demon]

Law. Law. Law. Law.
A rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

There is no law in place that says Christianity is TOPS! No law that says Christianity is really cool! No law telling people they need to follow it and no law strongly urging people to follow it.

Approving a statue is hardly creating a law respecting a religion. I think people are stretching this straightforward statement too far.

Olimario, sometimes I just have to ask, but are you stupid?

"...respecting an establishment of religion..."

Please tell me what the fuck you think that means.

There simply are no two ways about this issue. A statue of the ten commandments in front of a fucking court house is respecting an establishment of a particular religion. Now go read that fucking passage from the constitution again.

And that's okay. It's constitutional. Muslims can congregate on that property around the statue and practice their religion openly with no consequence.

Nevermind, I don't need to ask about the stupidity afterall. Hito's post applies to that perfectly:

Do not, under any circumstances, confuse the right of citizens with the power of government.

 

[whytemyke]

State property, but thats beside the point...

Very true. State Property. That's the only way this case has a chance of going through, is if it relies heavily on 10th Amendment rights.

And that's okay. It's constitutional. Muslims can congregate on that property around the statue and practice their religion openly with no consequence.

But can Muslims put statues of Muhammad in the court room? If you're going to allow for the basis of Torah and Hallakha in the court room, then you have to allow for a statue decreeing Shari'ah in the courts as well. And this is also ignoring that there are two sides to this case: the logical/legal, and the realistic. If this goes, it's going to have to be all or nothing (which I don't really care about), but everyone here knows that it'll be weeks before a Muslim judge puts a Qu'ran in his courtroom and gets sued over it.

 

[Hitokage]

Few things piss me off more than people who hate freedom, and by freedom I do not mean the recent buzzword for America. I mean actual liberty, and in case some of you haven't figured it out.. liberty that doesn't apply to the lesser of us is only a privledge of the elite, not freedom.

 

[olimario]

Do not, under any circumstances, confuse the right of citizens with the power of government. Government must remain religiously neutral to ALL so that ALL CITIZENS may enjoy freedom of religion.

ACCORDING TO WHAT? Nothing says governement must remain religiously neutral on all accounts. There is NO LAW respecting a religion or putting one above another.


Demon-
Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm stupid. I can't believe you can't see that there is no law in place respecting christianity over another religion. It's black and white.

 

[Mike Works]

I dont see whats wrong with it as long as the majority agrees with it.

Yikes.

 

[olimario]

Few things piss me off more than people who hate freedom, and by freedom I do not mean the recent buzzword for America. I mean actual liberty.

Who hates liberty? I don't want to see anyone's rights limited. I don't want to see the right of the State of Texas to display the 10 commandments on a statue just like I don't want to see Muslims denied the right to put up their own statue.



And monk, what the majority believes is not always = to what is correct.

 

[Hitokage]

Olimario: Not only may government may not pass laws respecting establishments of relgion, they cannot act as if there were.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

...

 

[xsarien]

ACCORDING TO WHAT? Nothing says governement must remain religiously neutral on all accounts.

A religious display on public land, put up by a local, state, or federal government authority is an implied, government "respected" establishment of religion.

That includes courts and public schools. If private groups wish to use public land, I have no issue with that, provided that other religious groups are able to use that same piece of land for their own displays.

 

[Monk]

I mean, what is a government for? To keep things fair for everyone or to do the will of the people?

You cant have it both ways.

 

[FoneBone]

I dont see whats wrong with it as long as the majority agrees with it.

Does the phrase "tyranny of the majority" mean nothing to you?

 

[Hitokage]

Who hates liberty?

Tom DeLay and ever other fundamentalist motherfucker who would rather put America under the yoke of their own brand of Christian law at the expense of our liberty.

I don't want to see anyone's rights limited. I don't want to see the right of the State of Texas to display the 10 commandments on a statue just like I don't want to see Muslims denied the right to put up their own statue.

WHAT DID I JUST FUCKING TELL YOU?

DO NOT
DO NOT
DO NOT CONFUSE THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS WITH THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT

 

[Monk]

Does the phrase "tyranny of the majority" mean nothing to you?

Nope.

 

[xsarien]

I mean, what is a government for? To keep things fair for everyone or to do the will of the people?

You cant have it both ways.

Actually, you can. But when the two are weighed in court, "fair," and protecting the rights of the minority supersede the will of the majority. If the will of the majority was the way we went every single time, there would still be two lines for the water fountain.

 

[olimario]

WHAT DID I JUST FUCKING TELL YOU?

DO NOT
DO NOT
DO NOT CONFUSE THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS WITH THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT

I'm not.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Congress made no such laws. If they did, show me the law. Having a state government approve a statue is hardly enacting a law. You know that.

It's just so black and white here. Government is not making laws respecting Christianity and they are not making laws prohibiting citizens from practicing the religion they want to practice. The powers of the governement effect the rights of the people... They are connected and people's rights are not being limited here.

 

[DaMan121]

I mean, what is a government for? To keep things fair for everyone or to do the will of the people?

You cant have it both ways.

Sometimes its there NOT to do the will of the people, because quite frankly people are stupid very often. Alot of the time the government is there to keep the majority view out. Its like that Men in Black quote,: " A person is smart, people are stupid".