Federal Appeals Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Ten Commandments Display

[LionsDen]

God has played a decisive role in America's history.

It is fitting and constitutional for our state and federal governments to acknowlege and honor God without endorsing a particular faith.

That is why the Supreme Court and several district courts allow the display of religious literature like the Ten Commandments on public property under certain conditions.

As a Christian and believer in the Bible, I feel grateful to the US Supreme and district courts for their affirmation of American religious history last April.

Press Release from ACLJ

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Ten Commandments Display

ACLJ Wins Second Victory in Kentucky Case

''This is an important defeat for the ACLU and other groups that are committed to removing our religious heritage and traditions from the public square.''

Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel


WASHINGTON, April 24, 2006 - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals announced today that it would reject a request to rehear a Ten Commandments case out of Kentucky. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), who represents Mercer County, the defendants in the case, was pleased by the court's 9-to-5 vote to not revisit the December 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Mercer County display.

''It's very clear that the full appeals court believes that its three-judge panel ruled correctly in upholding the constitutionality of this display,'' said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. ''This is an important defeat for the ACLU and other groups that are committed to removing our religious heritage and traditions from the public square. If this case is appealed to the Supreme Court, we stand ready to defend the display and remain confident that the constitutionality of the display will prevail.''

The December 2005 three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit voted unanimously rejecting the ACLU's argument that the display, which includes the Commandments posted along with other historical documents in the county courthouse, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In that opinion, Circuit Judge Suhrheinrich said that the ACLU's ''repeated reference to the separation of church and state' . . . has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.''

The court said that a reasonable observer of Mercer County's display would appreciate ''the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and find it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American traditions.''

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is the nation's leading national public interest law firm defending religious liberty. Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.

aclj.org

I sincerely believe the judge got it right when he wrote "...a reasonable observer of Mercer County's display would appreciate the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and find it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American traditions.''

I honor God and thank Him for guiding and blessing America for its special mission at this time in world history. Because of God's blessings upon America, He has used our country to spread the Christian faith around the world and to promote democracy and liberty. I believe this is God's doing.

May He continue to bless America.

[Stephen Maturin]

As usual, Jay Sekulow should be ashamed of himself. The actual decision upholding the Mercer County 10C display, discussed in this thread, happened over six months ago. The April decision didn't do anything substantive at all; it simply denied a request for an en banc rehearing.

BTW, this is pretty old news. You're way behind on your reading.

[LionsDen]

America owes her greatness to God. God chose America for a special part of His plan. We are not like other nations, because we honor God with our laws and national institutions, but do not endorse any church.

We have learned as a people to repent of our national sins and to do good for others. America has been a source great blessing to the rest of the world.

How wonderful to honor our Biblical and Judeo-Christian heritage upon which our constitution and laws are made or influenced.

There are some liberal groups trying to erase any public memory of our spiritual heritage. Our Christian law firms are fighting back and generally winning. Here is another victory.

Federal Court Says Ten Commandments Can Stay on Courthouse Lawn in Ohio

April 21, 2006
By MARK REITER

A federal judge in Toledo ruled yesterday that a decades-old granite monument of the Ten Commandments can remain standing on the lawn of the Lucas County Courthouse.

The decision of U.S. District Judge James Carr closely follows the ruling last year of the U.S. Supreme Court that addressed the issue for the display of biblical messages on public property.

In ruling on a 2002 lawsuit, Judge Carr said the motives in placing the stone monument outside the county courthouse were secular and not intended to deliver a message endorsing a particular religion.

The granite marker has stood at Erie and Adams streets since 1957 when it was given to the county by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles as part of a national effort to combat juvenile delinquency.

“I am persuaded that an objective observer could not conclude that the monument, despite the sectarian antecedents of its text, has the effect of endorsing religion in general or the specific tenets of any particular sectarian assembly,” Judge Carr wrote.

The ruling follows the groundwork from June’s Supreme Court rulings on displays of biblical law on public land in Kentucky and Texas.

The high court voted 5-4 to allow a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. The monument also was donated by the Eagles. But plaques with the biblical text at two Kentucky courthouses were ruled unconstitutional because the court felt the displays were blatantly religious.

The lawsuit in the Lucas County case was filed in 2002 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. However, Judge Carr suspended arguments in the case pending the outcome of the Supreme Court decisions.

Jeffrey Gamso, a Toledo lawyer and legal director for the ACLU in Ohio, said he believed Judge Carr incorrectly applied the high court rulings on the issue. “We think he got it wrong. …We will study the opinion and make a decision on how to proceed,” he said.

The ACLU lawsuit argued that the stone monument is prominently displayed on the courthouse grounds and should be removed because it endorses a certain religion.

Chuck Boss, one of the plaintiffs, said he couldn’t comment without reading the opinion. An ACLU member, Mr. Boss, a lawyer, testified that he was offended by the marker.

Andrew Ranazzi, an assistant Lucas County prosecutor who defended the county in the lawsuit, said, “This is a pretty good win for the county given that there was the issue of having the Ten Commandments removed from the courthouse.”

In his decision, Judge Carr said newspaper reports indicated public officials, such as judges, mayor, and a county commissioner, attended the monument’s dedication, and clergy or other representatives of religious groups were not present for the ceremony.

The Rev. Tony Scott, pastor of the Cathedral of Praise, said he didn’t see eye-to-eye with the court’s reasoning in allowing the marker to stay, but he was nonetheless pleased.

http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=2211

I encourage you to check the aclj.org or lc.org websites for legal information about America's religious heritage.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

America owes her greatness to God.

Ah.

I see you're back. Are you going to respond to anyone in this thread?

Oh, and BTW: I'm waiting for you over in the other thread. Care to discuss shellfish, kosher laws, and your general ignorance of things scientific?

[D. Scarlatti]

This is borderline spam, and that's being charitable.

Address your other threads before you start spamming the board.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Kitty the Litterer

God has played a decisive role in America's history.
...
America has been a source great blessing to the rest of the world.
....
He has used our country to spread the Christian faith around the world and to promote democracy and liberty.

Interesting claims.

Care to present any proof for them?

Considering the amount of damage and misery that the US has caused to the world, I think an even more effective argument could be made that Satan brought about the birth of this country.

...Biblical and Judeo-Christian heritage upon which our constitution and laws are made or influenced.

Silly nonsense. But as always, if you think you have an argument, we're all standing by to review your evidence for such claims.

[Stormlight]

Slightly off-topic, but still amusing:

10 commandments

[But]

[Javaman]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

How wonderful to honor our Biblical and Judeo-Christian heritage upon which our constitution and laws are made or influenced.

When you lie, you make the baby Jesus cry. Don't you think your god can see all?

[Leesifer]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

America owes her greatness to God. God chose America for a special part of His plan. We are not like other nations, because we honor God with our laws and national institutions, but do not endorse any church.

We have learned as a people to repent of our national sins and to do good for others. America has been a source great blessing to the rest of the world.

USA! USA!

[Legs]

Whatever you say, Lyin'sDen

[Wholly Goats]

Originally Posted by Leesifer

USA! USA!

AMERIKA! FUCK YEAH!



(LyinDan is just another fuckin' puppet.)

[Angakuk]

Anyone who takes the extreme position that the U.S. has been either an unblemished blessing or an unmitigated evil is simply living in a two dimensional, black and white world. A world that exists only in their imagination and bears little resemblance to the real world.

The debate over the display of the 10 Commandments is a case in point. There appear to be two opposing extreme positions.

1. The 10 Commandments ought to be displayed because they are the foundation of the American judicial system and this demonstrates that the nation is a nation founded on and dedicated to Christian principles.

2. The 10 Commandments ought not to be displayed because doing so amounts to an establishment of religion by endorsing position #1.

It seems that the Supreme Court has, reasonably I think, rejected both extremes and chosen a position in the middle ground. That is, that, under certain circumstances and conditions, a display of the 10 Commandments, on public property, may reflect the historical importance of the 10 Commandments within a context which includes other significant historical influences. Where such conditions are met, the display may be allowed. Where such conditions are not met, the display may not be allowed.

Now that seems to me to be a fair and balanced position. It also seems to me that those occupying positions at either extreme are not the least interested in either fairness or balance, but only in the propagation and promotion of their own beliefs.

Angakuk

[Javaman]

I think that's disingenuous, Angakuk. Those of us that don't belong to an Abrahamic faith don't want to promote our own beliefs, we just don't want others doing so with our tax money. Probably best suited for another thread (or none at all) but posting the 10 Commandments seems odd given the different ones available (which ones and whose denomination do you choose) and, more importantly, given that every branch of Christianity that I know of believes Jesus' sacrifice absolved them from following those same commandments.

Also, your #2 is actually true while #1 is demonstrably false.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Javaman

I think that's disingenuous, Angakuk. Those of us that don't belong to an Abrahamic faith don't want to promote our own beliefs, we just don't want others doing so with our tax money. Probably best suited for another thread (or none at all) but posting the 10 Commandments seems odd given the different ones available (which ones and whose denomination do you choose) and, more importantly, given that every branch of Christianity that I know of believes Jesus' sacrifice absolved them from following those same commandments.

Also, your #2 is actually true while #1 is demonstrably false.

There you go again. You are practically a walking advertisement for black & white thinking.

Point 1. Most, if not all, of the displays in question were donated, not provided for by public funds.

Point 2. Insisting on the removal of those displays which meet the Supreme Court's conditions is an act of advocacy on behalf of a particular belief. That belief being that any display of or reference to the 10 Commandments is de facto an endorsement of a religious belief. Effectively, you are conceding that the display of the 10 Commandments necessarily means what those who advocate position #1 intend it to mean.

Point 3. I agree that there is a delicious irony in the preoccupation displayed, by a certain variety of Christian, for the public display of the 10 Commandments. But, as you say, that discussion probably belongs in another thread.

Point 4. While I agree that #1 is false, you are going to have to work harder to demonstrate to me that #2 is true. It's a classic example of a bifurcation fallacy. It is not necessarily the case that either position is true. Unless, of course, you are addicted to thinking exclusively in black & white terms. Then there are always only two options and one must be true and the other false.

[The Lone Ranger]

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Islamic] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

- Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli
Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, and at Algiers January 3, 1797. Submitted to the United States Senate May 29, 1797. Ratified by the United States Senate and signed into law by President John Adams June 10, 1797.

[My emphasis]

Cheers,

Michael

[Javaman]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There you go again. You are practically a walking advertisement for black & white thinking.

You do not know me very well. If I have a single thought here it is that dividing Americans is bad. Dividing people in general is bad when they fight over such matters.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Point 1. Most, if not all, of the displays in question were donated, not provided for by public funds.

But are maintained by them. I know, there is one in my town donated by the FoE.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Point 2. Insisting on the removal of those displays which meet the Supreme Court's conditions is an act of advocacy on behalf of a particular belief. That belief being that any display of or reference to the 10 Commandments is de facto an endorsement of a religious belief. Effectively, you are conceding that the display of the 10 Commandments necessarily means what those who advocate position #1 intend it to mean.

You are using 'belief' in two decidedly different ways here. Again, I don't want my beliefs pushed on anyone! Do you get told much that you shouldn't believe in a god? See many athiest shows on TV? What is the benefit of posting divisive materials in government building and on publicly-funded property? Why is this good and fair - or do you not care?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Point 3. I agree that there is a delicious irony in the preoccupation displayed, by a certain variety of Christian, for the public display of the 10 Commandments. But, as you say, that discussion probably belongs in another thread.

I've participated in a few of those discussions already and they are interesing to say the least. Perhaps I'll start one tomorrow as I'll soon be off to bed.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Point 4. While I agree that #1 is false, you are going to have to work harder to demonstrate to me that #2 is true. It's a classic example of a bifurcation fallacy. It is not necessarily the case that either position is true. Unless, of course, you are addicted to thinking exclusively in black & white terms. Then there are always only two options and one must be true and the other false.

At the very least, the appearance of an endorsement is there. Does the Hindu feel he will get fair treatment in a courthouse with the 10C's posted? Gotta sleep.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Anyone who takes the extreme position that the U.S. has been either an unblemished blessing or an unmitigated evil is simply living in a two dimensional, black and white world. A world that exists only in their imagination and bears little resemblance to the real world.

The debate over the display of the 10 Commandments is a case in point. There appear to be two opposing extreme positions.

1. The 10 Commandments ought to be displayed because they are the foundation of the American judicial system and this demonstrates that the nation is a nation founded on and dedicated to Christian principles.

2. The 10 Commandments ought not to be displayed because doing so amounts to an establishment of religion by endorsing position #1.

It seems that the Supreme Court has, reasonably I think, rejected both extremes and chosen a position in the middle ground. That is, that, under certain circumstances and conditions, a display of the 10 Commandments, on public property, may reflect the historical importance of the 10 Commandments within a context which includes other significant historical influences. Where such conditions are met, the display may be allowed. Where such conditions are not met, the display may not be allowed.

Now that seems to me to be a fair and balanced position. It also seems to me that those occupying positions at either extreme are not the least interested in either fairness or balance, but only in the propagation and promotion of their own beliefs.

Angakuk

Cool! Good post, Angakuk. Reminds me of a law student joke about three mutually exclusive defenses. A man was accused of renting a boat in good condition and returning it damaged. His attorney's three mutually exclusive and equally successful defenses were:

(1) I didn't rent the boat.

(2) When I rented the boat, it already had a hole in it.

(3) When I returned the boat, there was no hole in it.



Courts have allowed the Ten Commandments and other religious displays for two contradictory reasons and under various additional conditions. Either the Ten Commandments are not religious so we can display them, or the Ten Commandments are religious and we can display religious material.

I am optimistic that the George Bush appointees to the Supreme Court will find the right solution.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Javaman

You do not know me very well. If I have a single thought here it is that dividing Americans is bad. Dividing people in general is bad when they fight over such matters.

You're right, I don't know you. I only know what I have read in a few of your posts, particularly in this thread. That is what and who I am responding to.

Originally Posted by Javaman

But are maintained by them. I know, there is one in my town donated by the FoE.

I don't know what it costs to maintain those displays, though I don't imagine that it is very much. You are right though, the public ought not to be responsible for the cost of maintaining a display that has been privately donated. Let the courthouse custodian stop scrubbing the grime and bird shit off the monument and I have little doubt that the Eagles, or some other interested party, will gladly step in and pick up the slack. That plow won't scour.

Originally Posted by Javaman

You are using 'belief' in two decidedly different ways here. Again, I don't want my beliefs pushed on anyone! Do you get told much that you shouldn't believe in a god? See many athiest shows on TV? What is the benefit of posting divisive materials in government building and on publicly-funded property? Why is this good and fair - or do you not care?

Actually, I am using the term 'beliefs' in one sense. That is, beliefs about the way things are or ought to be. This is hardly limited to credal formulations.

No I don't often get told that I should not believe in God. I do often see my beliefs denounced and ridiculed, both in the media (print, film and broadcast) and by public officials. I don't see how the question is relevant. A public display of the 10 Commandments, in the context allowed by the Supreme Court, hardly constitutes an injunction to believe in God or even in the 10 Commandments. Is the posting of the 10 Commandments inherently divisive? The mere fact that some people, for their own ideological reasons, find something objectionable does not mean that the thing, in itself, is inherently objectionable or divisive.

Originally Posted by Javaman

At the very least, the appearance of an endorsement is there.

Endorsement of what? Many courthouses and state capitol buildings include a copy of the Declaration of Independence. Does it follow that the state is then endorsing the particular doctrine of God that is embedded in that document? Should the public display of the Declaration of Independence also be prohibited?

Originally Posted by Javaman

Does the Hindu feel he will get fair treatment in a courthouse with the 10C's posted?

I suppose that depends upon the individual Hindu and his/her presuppositions about what the presence of that document means. Personally, I think it would be unreasonable to assume that, because a copy of the 10 Commandments is displayed in the courthouse or on the lawn, that those inside the courthouse, tasked with the administration of justice, necessarily profess belief in any or all of its contents.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Many courthouses and state capitol buildings include a copy of the Declaration of Independence. Does it follow that the state is then endorsing the particular doctrine of God that is embedded in that document? Should the public display of the Declaration of Independence also be prohibited?

Interestingly that happened to a school teacher in CA! He brought into class copies of historical documents for students to study. Most of them contained references to God, and the school principle overreacted demanding he keep them out.

The endeavors of a Christian civil rights law firm and a lot of concerned citizens 'persuaded' the school board to persuade the principle to allow the documents. One of them was the Declaration of Independence!

True.

That is why I say liberals are the new anti-free speech censors of the 21st century.

[livius drusus]

I'd be curious to see your source on that story, please, LionsDen.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Cool! Good post, Angakuk. Reminds me of a law student joke about three mutually exclusive defenses. A man was accused of renting a boat in good condition and returning it damaged. His attorney's three mutually exclusive and equally successful defenses were:

(1) I didn't rent the boat.

(2) When I rented the boat, it already had a hole in it.

(3) When I returned the boat, there was no hole in it.

Courts have allowed the Ten Commandments and other religious displays for two contradictory reasons and under various additional conditions. Either the Ten Commandments are not religious so we can display them, or the Ten Commandments are religious and we can display religious material.

I am optimistic that the George Bush appointees to the Supreme Court will find the right solution.

I hope that you are not under the mistaken impression that I am agreeing with you. Though it is just possible that, given the selective manner in which you read, you have somehow come to that erroneous conclusion. Let me make it clear. I find the manner in which you approach this issue, and every other issue you have posted on, bigoted and irrational in the extreme. You routinely ignore reasonable arguments and inconvenient facts, no matter how often and accurately they are presented. You have repeatedly been rude to, and dismissive of, posters who's arguments or style you found distasteful or uncongenial. Your posts on this board represent the epitome of the kind of black & white thinking that I criticized in the very post you just quoted. As a Christian and a pastor, I find you, and your attitude, to be an acute source of embarrassment.

Angakuk

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I'd be curious to see your source on that story, please, LionsDen.

So would I. Because he's dissembling and misrepresenting yet again.

Although I'm certain his source is the Alliance Defense Fund.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I hope that you are not under the mistaken impression that I am agreeing with you.

Nope! I just appreciate the fact that you disagree without personal insults. I do too. I encourage others to join us in setting a high tone for how we treat others on the forum.

Though it is just possible that, given the selective manner in which you read, you have somehow come to that erroneous conclusion.

I don't read selectively. I suspect this is your bias showing through. No matter. Enjoy the posts anyway.

Let me make it clear. I find the manner in which you approach this issue, and every other issue you have posted on, bigoted and irrational in the extreme.

You are mistaken. You fail to see your own bias and wishful thinking in what you wrote. But no matter. Let the facts speak and the judges decide! We can punditize all we want.

You routinely ignore reasonable arguments and inconvenient facts, no matter how often and accurately they are presented.

That is a truly 'debateable presumption'. I have found the opposite to be true, especially among liberals. They operate as if theirs is the only interpretation of history and only world view. Still I admire one who can disagree without descending to personal insult.

You have repeatedly been rude to, and dismissive of, posters who's arguments or style you found distasteful or uncongenial.

Never! I may be dismissive of stupid ideas, but not of other posters. I may not reply to all posts, especially those that attack my person instead of my ideas. But I choose to treat others with respect.

Your posts on this board represent the epitome of the kind of black & white thinking that I criticized in the very post you just quoted.

Ah, well that's your problem. You don't believe in absoute right and wrong. No wonder you are upset with one who believes in truth!

Rush Limbaugh made the highly accurate observation that liberals cannot stand certainty and conviction. For them the world must always be gray! As the Chicks would say, "There's your trouble!"


As a Christian and a pastor, I find you, and your attitude, to be an acute source of embarrassment.

Not all who claim to be Christians really are. In fact most people calling themselves Christian have never even met God and don't know Him personally. If you are pastor of one of those dying liberal denominations, then I pity you. Perhaps a little something more 'supernatural' would help your religion!

Angakuk

...

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Interestingly that happened to a school teacher in CA!

Yawn. Another fantasy.

Still waiting for you over in the Whole Foods / shellfish thread, by the way, alphamale. Are you man enough to meet me there?