Federal Appeals Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Ten Commandments Display

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Yawn. Another fantasy.

LionsDen is pretty obviously referring to what eventually became Williams v. Vidmar, 367 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D. Cal. 2005). At a point early on in the proceedings, the Alliance Defense Fund issued a press release bearing the headline, "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom," that was picked up by media outlets across the country.

The truth of the matter is, however, that in the Cupertino Union School District, where the dispute arose, use of a textbook containing the complete text of the Declaration of Independence is a mandatory component of the curriculum.

LionsDen is simply repeating that particular lie, among others, a depressingly familiar activity of his.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

LionsDen is pretty obviously referring to what eventually became Williams v. Vidmar, 367 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D. Cal. 2005). At a point early on in the proceedings, the Alliance Defense Fund issued a press release bearing the headline, "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom," that was picked up by media outlets across the country.

The truth of the matter is, however, that in the Cupertino Union School District, where the dispute arose, use of a textbook containing the complete text of the Declaration of Independence is a mandatory component of the curriculum.

LionsDen is simply repeating that particular lie, among others.

Evangelicals and creationists share one characteristic: no lie beneficial to their causes can ever truly die; it merely lies dormant for awhile and then re-surfaces.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

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.

Given your behavior in at least this thread (not to mention others), where you repeatedly insinuated that maddog was being deliberately dishonest despite her endlessly thorough, detailed, and consistently respectful responses to you, I wouldn't kid yourself that you set a high tone for how you treat others on this forum. You're not kidding anyone else.

[D. Scarlatti]

I have read a lot of message boards on these topics, and normally I would be hesitant to accuse someone of lying because they misread or misunderstood a press release, or a news report, or even spun it in a certain direction.

It's even more forgiveable to misunderstand or misrepresent the law; I do it myself all the time. As a matter of fact, there are several posters on this board that have a firmer grasp of several legal issues than many lawyers do.

But I have never seen anything quite like LionsDen.

[Angakuk]

LionsDen, I am going to ignore your observations about my bias and my faith. They are truly neither here nor there. But I can't let this just slide.

Originally Posted by LionsDen

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.

If you truly do not consider this comment

I invite other more thoughtful readers to consider the possibilies for harm and the ways to prevent harm in lowering the marriage age or in creating common law marriages without state regulation. As for lizz... well, thanks anyway. We've heard from you.

rude and dismissive, then it appears that we have very different notions of what constitutes a rude and dismissive statement.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

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

Yes, you can read all about at these fine websites plus the Alliance Defense Fund site too.

The Claremont Institute: The Remedy
The mission of The Claremont Institute is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. Learn More... ban on a teacher giving students the Declaration of Independence, described by Tom Karako below, is in direct conflict with California ... to God were already ... the school said that ...www.claremont.org/weblog/001676.html - 57k - Cached - More from this site - Save

Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School
... California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence ... the principle is ...democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&... -

Posted on 11/29/2004 3:40:24 PM PST by Ed Current. CUPERTINO, Calif. -- ... they contain references to God and Christianity ... Cupertino, California school that has barred the Declaration of Independence, various ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1290657/posts - 54k - Cached - More from this site - Save

Declaration of Independence banned from CA school - Ex Isle Forums
... California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God — including the Declaration of Independence ... blanket ban on ...http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?...90&#entry476890 - 284k - Cached - More from this site - Save

The Mayor Speaks: Left Coast Insanity
Left Coast Insanity. It is political correctness and anti-God behavior gone nuts. From the Reuters news wire... California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence ... school principle Patricia ...http://www.joelcomm.com/2004/11/lef...t_insanity.html - 17k - Cached - More from this site - Save

Alturas Forums - California Schools Ban Declaration of Independence
AlturasForums.Com - A General Discussion and Off Topic conversation forum! ... did the teacher ban the entire Declaration of Independence from being taught by any teacher in the entire school ... contains references to God". The principle never said "you've been ...http://www.alturasforums.com/forums....php/t-803.html - 35k - Cached - More from this site - Save

Alturas Forums - California Schools Ban Declaration of Independence
... contains references to God ... California Schools Ban Declaration of Independence. On the contrary, there is a question of why. As in, "Why did the school only require this one teacher ...http://www.alturasforums.com/forums...php?t=803&pp=40 - 44k - Cached - More from this site - Save

Re: DOI Banned from Public School Classroom as Religious Material
Post 1 of 1 Topic 1277 of 6331. Post > Topic >> Re: DOI Banned from Public School Classroom as Religious Materialwww.talkabouteducation.com/group/alt.education/messages/154587.html - 15k - Cached - More from this site - Save

Declaration of Independence Banned at California School - MacNN Forums
Declaration of Independence Banned at California School Political/War Lounge ... California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence ... to ban the DoI ...forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=236436 - 208k - Cached - More from this site - Save

Expelling the Founders: God and History in California
Posted on 12/10/2004 10:42:09 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ... God or religion. Included in the ban, according to Williams, "are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence ... and the school principle ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1298718/posts - 38k - Cached - More from this site - Save
RonaldReagan.Com Message Board: Update on" banning" the Declaration of Independence

450k - Cached - More from this site - Save
Media Matters - FOX peddles false report that California school "banned Declaration of Independence because it ...
You are not logged in. Wed, Dec 8, 2004 8:24pm EST. FOX peddles false report that California school "banned Declaration of Independence because it mentions God" ... in the school? What if the teacher had been ...mediamatters.org/items/200412090002 - 50k - Cached - More from this site - Save

The last source is from a liberal leftwing website, media matters, that is what I call ACLU-lite. The claim the story is a hoax. They are wrong, as is so much of the misinformation from the liberal left.

The ADF, however, says that they interview everyone in person who asks for their help. Then they interview witnesses and then check sources. The refuse cases if they cannot confirm the complaint. They investigated this and confirmed it.

You can decide. Another poster her repeated the propaganda line that just because the school system has the DOI in a book (or on a school wall) that it somehow makes the lawsuit invalid. The other poster is wrong. The fact is that the policy of the principal was to prevent the assembly of all these various documents in a single source of information about religious freedom for the students.

Why? Because the liberals fear devout religious faith like the founding fathers had, like Ronald Reagan had, and like our current President and Vice-President enjoy. I am pleased to report that the principal's anti-faith censorship campaign failed. I celebrate the victory!

My take is that the school system felt the heat and lied about the original principal's order or just let the principal lie and then reversed the ban policy. It is creepy that such a thing could happen in America, but then that was California!

[D. Scarlatti]

Thank you for highlighting your additional lies in blue. You don't by any chance suppose the federal district court had anything to do with rendering the lawsuit invalid, do you? Are you familiar with the expression, "MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED"?

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

Angakuk

Angakuk,
Your analysis is, by and large, correct. The "circumstances and conditions" have to do with purposes for which the display is made.

The state has no business promoting religion, or endorsing or promoting a particular religion or religions. If the purpose of a display is to promote religion (e.g., to demonstrate that "this is a Christian nation,") then the display is illegitimate and violates the Establishment Clause.

If the display is to show, "here are several sources which show the historical importance of law for human beings," and the display includes the 10C's, among others, then the purpose is secular -- to show the importance of law, and its sources, through history. Such a display does not violate the Establishment Clause.

You did a good job, Ang.

#784

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

FOX peddles false report that California school "banned Declaration of Independence because it mentions God"

Whoops, sorry. You did post something truthful for a change. Good for you.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Yes, you can read all about at these fine websites plus the Alliance Defense Fund site too.

The Claremont Institute: The Remedy
The mission of The Claremont Institute is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. Learn More... ban on a teacher giving students the Declaration of Independence, described by Tom Karako below, is in direct conflict with California ... to God were already ... the school said that ...www.claremont.org/weblog/001676.html - 57k - Cached - More from this site - Save

Well, let's see:
The first link in this "source" is the famous "file not found" source that all conservatives like to quote from. Edited to add: I see you removed it.

The current link is an opinion posted on a blog. However, the links in the blog comments are, predictably, dead-end links. The "Tom Karako" article is nowhere to be found. I'm sorry - did anyone give you the mistaken impression that a blog entry was a source?

Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School
... California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence ... the principle is ...democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&... -

This link, obviously, is incomplete in the form you provided it.

Posted on 11/29/2004 3:40:24 PM PST by Ed Current. CUPERTINO, Calif. -- ... they contain references to God and Christianity ... Cupertino, California school that has barred the Declaration of Independence, various ...[url]www.freerepublic.com

Freerepublic is a redneck wingnut propaganda site, not a source. Silly!

Oh, Alpha, Alpha, Alpha -- tsk, tsk -- I'm quite sure we had this discussion last time you were here. No bullshit biased sources, remember?

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your sources, since your track record so far indicates that you wouldn't know a valid source if it walked up and slapped you.

[D. Scarlatti]

It doesn't matter what his sources are. The bottom line is, LionsDen is full of shit. The teacher was using his classroom as a fundamentalist pulpit, several parents complained, and, in reponse to these complaints, he was placed under scrutiny by the principal, who required he submit his lesson plans beforehand. He went ahead and kept using his position as a public school teacher to preach his own personal version of Christianity anyway.

He sued the principal, alleging four causes of action, including a violation of equal protection which, in that jurisdiction, is very liberally construed. A ham sandwich can get past the initial pleading stage with an equal protection claim.

However, each of his other three substantive causes of action were dismissed - with prejudice. He was ordered to file an amended complaint stating only the equal protection claim (which becomes just a tad more difficult beyond the initial pleading stage).

Ultimately he withdrew the complaint (supposedly) pursuant to a settlement with the school district that awarded him absolutely nothing. He then quit his job and returned to obscurity. The ADF, however, continues to lie like a fucking rug.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

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

Which god should they honor?

[Javaman]

Either his or one which is watered down and generic enough to have a broad appeal. I'm sure plain old 'God' will glorify him just fine.

[Javaman]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

That's fair enough. My 'Reinstall XP' thread got downright nasty! I'd hope, though, that you'd see that I'm being honest when I say I don't want my own views endorsed by the government. It does bother me quite a bit when superstition gets preferential treatment where I don't see its place. Say, for example, most of the populace likes pepper. The Spice Council (made up - probably) gets a motto put above the President's seal saying, "Grind more pepper on your food to make it taste good".

Is it wrong? No.
Is it a position held by the majority of Americans? Probably.
Does it make sense to have that statement in government? No.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

Hang on a second. By that logic, I could donate a plaque with the phrase, "Christianity was invented by Paul and Jesus was probably just some nice guy." and it could be placed along side the 10C's as long as I came in and maintained it. Better yet, Something like:

Holy Communion is the shortest and safest way to heaven. -- Pope St. Pius X

And the local RC Elementary school could come in and clean that up every once in a while. They still have a plurality in this country (I think).

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

You still haven't told me why they should be put up. The handfull that have some basis in our legal system are outweiged by the ones that either do not or are contrary to it.

To your earlier statement, you really want to talk about someones beliefs being 'denounced and belittled'? Walk a few feet in my shoes. As a veteran and a law-abiding citizen, it is very painful to be called un-American and un-patriotic and told to "move to Iran" (or Afghanistan or Iraq) because I lack a belief in a god.

Restricting people from using the public pulpit to promote their own beliefs is not the same as telling them they can't hold those beliefs nor promote them in public.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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?

What, the generic term, 'creator'? I guess I have little problem with it for two reasons; one, it's such a broad term that even I could come close to accepting. Two, in 18th century America and elsewhere, darn near everyone believed in some sort of god. Regardless of its verbage, it was the document that preceded our becoming an independent country and has some significance. The 10 Commandments, however, have an extremely tenuous and dubious link to anything in our legal system - the laws that do have an American equivalent all existed in other cultures and in diametrically-opposed belief systems throughout the world.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

Then why put it there? I really don't understand what your counter argument is. How can these phrases be helpful to a non-Abrahamic believer:

Some Excerpts

Deuteronomy 5

6 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

7 "You shall have no other gods before me.

8 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

11 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

12 "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

[Javaman]

My 'pepper' example above is a bit weak. I was going for something that wasn't mystical but still doesn't fit in government. An earthly, tactile sentiment should be even more weighty than an ethereal one, in my opinion. I think I need to work on that.

BTW, are you anywhere near Ames, Angakuk?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Another poster here repeated the propaganda line that just because the school system has the DOI in a book (or on a school wall) that it somehow makes the lawsuit invalid. The other poster is wrong.

By the way, that is not what I said at all. What I said was that a textbook used by the school district contains the Declaration of Independence. The headline on the ADF press release was "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom." The fact that the ADF lied has nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Your compendium of links serves no other purpose than to confirm that a series of rightwing screwheads swallowed and regurgitated the ADF's baldfaced lie. And it goes without saying - although it's always fun to point out - that you are engaging in the same dishonest activity right here.

My take is that the school system felt the heat and lied about the original principal's order or just let the principal lie and then reversed the ban policy.

There was no "policy," and your "take" is complete bullshit, along with the rest of your drivel.

It is creepy that such a thing could happen in America, but then that was California!

What is creepy is that a public school teacher actually believes that his "freedom of speech" entitles him to convert his classroom into a fundamentalist pulpit before a captive audience of fifth graders.

From a purely academic standpoint, what's even creepier is an alleged history teacher presenting to his captive audience of fifth graders forged documents in the guise of 'George Washington's Prayer Journals.'

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Javaman

Hang on a second. By that logic, I could donate a plaque with the phrase, "Christianity was invented by Paul and Jesus was probably just some nice guy." and it could be placed along side the 10C's as long as I came in and maintained it. Better yet, Something like:

Holy Communion is the shortest and safest way to heaven. -- Pope St. Pius X

And the local RC Elementary school could come in and clean that up every once in a while. They still have a plurality in this country (I think).

Hardly the same thing. I never suggested that anything someone has donated has a legitimate place in a public building. You objected to the use of tax dollars to maintain existing displays. I pointed out a reasonable alternative to using tax dollars. I never suggested that their being free of cost to the public was, in itself, a justification for placing such displays.

Originally Posted by Javaman

You still haven't told me why they should be put up. The handfull that have some basis in our legal system are outweiged by the ones that either do not or are contrary to it.

No I haven't, neither have I claimed that such displays should be installed. Nonetheless, such displays do exist and the Supreme Court has ruled that, under certain conditions, they are allowable, because they serve a legitimate secular purpose. Let me quote Maddog, who is far more knowledgable on the subject than I am.

If the display is to show, "here are several sources which show the historical importance of law for human beings," and the display includes the 10C's, among others, then the purpose is secular -- to show the importance of law, and its sources, through history. Such a display does not violate the Establishment Clause.

If you don't like it, take it up with the Supreme Court. Until such time as the court rules differently or congress passes a law prohibiting the practice, those displays, which meet the conditions set by the court, are legal.

With regard to the Declaration of Independence, I had in mind the phrase "Nature's God", though I would suppose that "Creator" ought to be considered an equally obnoxious promotion of religious belief. Your argument from comparative historical relevance is simply a matter of degree. Unless you are going to argue that the 10 Commandments have absolutely no relevance to a general history of law. By this line of reasoning the Ordinances of Solon, the Code of Hamurabi and the Magna Carta also lack historical relevance, since they also "have an extremely tenuous and dubious link to anything in our legal system". However, the truth is that all of these documents, including the 10 Commandments, have a part in the philosophical and historical underpinnings to the concept of the rule of law.

Angakuk

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Javaman

BTW, are you anywhere near Ames, Angakuk?

Well, I am in the same state. Why do you ask?

[Javaman]

My boss and good friend is Lutheran and is from Ames where some of his family still lives. Though being Lutheran and from this area (and northwards) is pretty darn common. I guess I was going somewhere like, "Oh, do you know so-and-so," but that's kind of like my wife getting the old, "Oh, you're from England? I had a great aunt from Ipswitch. Do you know the Mortensons?"

Never mind.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Which god should they honor?

The words 'God' and 'prayer' may be interpreted by each individual. That is why the use of the words 'God' and 'prayer' by government employees and elected officials is constitutional.

If the ACLU, People for the Ameican Way, Rev Barry Lynn and Americans United for Separation etc. or the Democrat Party or the Libertarian Party try to fool you, you will know better.

[LionsDen]

If you don't like it, take it up with the Supreme Court. Until such time as the court rules differently or congress passes a law prohibiting the practice, those displays, which meet the conditions set by the court, are legal.

With regard to the Declaration of Independence, I had in mind the phrase "Nature's God", though I would suppose that "Creator" ought to be considered an equally obnoxious promotion of religious belief. Your argument from comparative historical relevance is simply a matter of degree. Unless you are going to argue that the 10 Commandments have absolutely no relevance to a general history of law. By this line of reasoning the Ordinances of Solon, the Code of Hamurabi and the Magna Carta also lack historical relevance, since they also "have an extremely tenuous and dubious link to anything in our legal system". However, the truth is that all of these documents, including the 10 Commandments, have a part in the philosophical and historical underpinnings to the concept of the rule of law.

Well-stated. Or as Jerry Orbach's character once said Law & Order, "Yeah, what he said."

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

If the ACLU, People for the Ameican Way, Rev Barry Lynn and Americans United for Separation etc. or the Democrat Party or the Libertarian Party try to fool you, you will know better.

You forgot the links:

American Civil Liberties Union
People for the American Way
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Democratic Party
Libertarian Party

I don't know about those last two, but the first three are excellent resources.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

The words 'God' and 'prayer' may be interpreted by each individual.

But the first commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods but me." That says it's NOT up to interpretation by each individual, that people are only allowed to honor one god. By posting the ten commandments the legislature is endorsing that view. So which god are they honoring?

[Wholly Goats]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

But the first commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods but me." That says it's NOT up to interpretation by each individual, that people are only allowed to honor one god. By posting the ten commandments the legislature is endorsing that view. So which god are they honoring?

Hmmm... I actually understood it to be "Thous shalt have no other gods before me."

Doesn't that mean it's a-okay to acknowledge other gods, so long as they come after this particular one?

And... Just looking at those again, I noticed that if we were to apply these laws, practically every artist would be thrown in jail. "No pix...that's agin the third commandment."

Lastly, given the importance of these, I still fail to understand why it is that Lyin'Dan continues to repeatedly violate the ninth.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

But the first commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods but me." That says it's NOT up to interpretation by each individual, that people are only allowed to honor one god. By posting the ten commandments the legislature is endorsing that view. So which god are they honoring?

According to the Supreme Court it is not legal to display the 10 Commandments in a court house or other public building for the purpose of endorsing a religious belief. It is legal to display them for a secular purpose. Thus, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, it is possible to display the 10 Commandments without endorsing a religious belief. I realize that you hold a contrary opinion. Fortunately, or unfortunately, as the case may be, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court that determines the law of the land, not yours.

Angakuk