Law-Forums.org

[jamilah38]

Don't you hate that our country (which is 78% Christian) is so intolerant towards Christians?

[wendlesora]

"So how can we justify court rulings that abolish things like the Mojave Cross and dsiplays of the Ten Commandments at courthouses?"

It's very simple and it's James Madison who answered that question. He said that because we obviously can't allow them all to do a little something without public places and buildings to become a big mess of religious messages, we must allow none. As simple as that... no public display on public buildings; no hymn, song or prayer beyond religious institutions and private initiatives; no mention in any civil text or law. Why? Because then the Muslim will want his little piece; then the Jew; then the Buddhist or the Mormon... it won't ever end. Want better? It could also allow for anti-religious group to do the same. So be just: do it for nobody at all.

The first Amendment tells you that the Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof.

A law regarding an establishment of religion means that you can't make a state-ruled religion -- you can't tell the Chruch of any denomination or any religious group how to organize, in short. The second part tells that we can't make laws that prevent you from taking part into your religious ceremonies and customs. In no place does it says that the Congress can put in place public officials that have the right to put up religious symbols unto the surface of public buildings -- in fact, the first amendment prohibit them, through their mandate, to order any type of religious exercise: they can't organize it. Putting up these things is an infringement and should indeed be ruled out as a mistake.

They are public officials and these are public buildings and they aren't allowed to use their powers to put up religious symbols, regardless of their conviction or of how many people support the project. If it pisses you off that bad, try to get 3/4 of States and 2/3 of each Houses to change it.

EDIT:
To answer someone on here, no we can't make any test that would prevent people from taking part in political affairs for their religious beliefs and it's a nice example of a slippery slope fallacy as well as a false analogy. Not being allowed to publish religious symbols as a state official and not being allowed as a citizen to have beliefs are two different things... As a citizen, you can use private means to express a private opinion publicly; but as a state official or else as a congressman, although you are allowed privately and individually to express religious beliefs, you are not allowed to use public means to publicly display private beliefs. Don't you see the difference? When you work for the government, you in fact work for people -- and for all of them: those who agreed with you and those who didn't; those with whom you share beliefs and those with whom you don't. You aren't there as the citizen, but as the public man... there's a difference.

[dacy17]

WOW. The Constitution also lays out ground rules for how to keep slaves. And how slaves get to vote. A lot of liberals, I'd say a good majority of liberals are Christian, too.

Also, the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is a separation of Church and State thing. If you want to put them up, fine, but also put up a religious symbol of all other religions. If you get the right, we all do. So if you want the Ten Commandments in their, OK, but I get to put up the FSM, OK?

Also, have you read the constitution? There is this thing called interpretation, and it depends on who reads it how it is interpreted. For example, the right to bear arms was put in the Bill of Rights only so that the U.S. could have a militia in case we were invaded again. Not to let some idiot carry a glock in his pocket to make him feel powerful.

The people who wrote the constitution wrote it so that it could be interpreted and changed over the years. If you put up crosses all over it could offend people like myself who already get a LOT of Christianity shoved in their faces. And if you put up big crosses it would impede upon my pursuit of happiness, an unalienable right. The Constitution contradicts itself on purpose. The founding fathers were very intelligent, and they wanted to make US think about the laws just as much as THEY thought about them.