Subject:
|
Re: Separation of Church and State
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:06:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
259 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2977382.stm
>
> In which granite tablets inscribed with the 10 commandments were removed from
> school property.
>
> Is this separation or liberalism run amok?
From the article, I'm not 100% sure, but I interpret the issue to have
occurred on the grounds of two public schools. Am I correct?
If so, then here's my answer:
It's not liberalism at all; it is an objective and correct reading of the
First Amendment of the Constitution.
Would these "kneeling and praying" protestors be equally supportive of a huge
sculpture of the Buddha or Brahma on school grounds? If not, then they must
acknowledge that they are supporting only the endorsement of their own religious
views by a public institution. But even if they would be as supportive of such
a mural, then they'd still be wrong, because it would still be a violation of
the First Amendment.
> If, say, I was a teacher at this school, and I had a card with the 10
> commandments on my desk, is that violating C & S?
Yes.
> If a child wants to do for her artwork presentation, a pic of Moses hefting
> the stone tablets down from the mountain, would that violate the C & S?
No, unless the child's artwork presentation was included in some kind of
school-sponsored or school-endorsed exhibit (even if that exhibit is on or
within school property).
In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that this is the weakest
part of my argument. Frank has written a somewhat better addressing of it, but
I don't entirely agree with his conclusion. In any case, I stand by my
assertion, but I don't have a rock-solid defense of it. I'll work on it...
> If a wealthy member of the community donated these tablets to the school
> years ago and the school accepts, is that violating? (not stated in the
> article, but just a hypothetical)
Yes. It doesn't really matter how long ago the tablets were received, so
there's no "grandfather clause" to cite; the school was in violation of the
Constitution the moment it accepted the tablets (or posted the picture of Noah's
Ark, or hosted an Easter Pageant, etc..)
> And, as the article shows us, does the wants of the individual outweigh the
> wants of the community in general?
It might be more accurately described as follows: some members of the local
community are requiring the school to adhere to the US Constitution, while a
greater number of other members of the community is asserting that the school
should be able to display a religious monument on public property. The number
of people on each side of the is irrelevant.
Sadly, Ms. Fulton has reported the facts exactly backward:
> "I think our rights are being taken away, just for the sake of one person,"
> said Sharon Fulton, wife of Reverend Phil Fulton, one of those arrested.
It is erroneous of her to claim that the police, in enforcing the judge's
correct ruling that the monument was a violation of the First Amendment, are
somehow causing her rights to be "taken away." She is claiming, in effect, that
she [and those of similar view in this case] have the right to State endorsement
of their religion, and that is flatly and obviously incorrect.
If this were a private school, or if the monument had been forcibly removed
from private property by judicial order, then Ms. Fulton would be absolutely
correct in her objection, and I would support her claim 100%.
By the way, Frank also makes an excellent point about the presence of the Ten
Commandments in or near a courtroom or courthouse, and he is exactly correct to
cite the implication that jurors are thereby encouraged to include the Decalogue
(or, by extension, the bible) in their deliberation. The bible is absolutely
not a document of secular law, whereas the courthouse is absolutely an
institution of secular law.
Some have argued that the Ten Commandments should be allowed, either because
they are "historical examples of law" or are "the basis for our legal system."
Both assertions are incorrect.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Separation of Church and State
|
| (...) Where I agree about the 'separation of church and state' means that 'official school sanctioned religious prayer' is a no-no, people getting together and praying to their deity, unofficial like and not school supported at all is quite fine. (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Separation of Church and State
|
| (URL) which granite tablets inscribed with the 10 commandments were removed from school property. Is this separation or liberalism run amok? I dunno. If, say, I was a teacher at this school, and I had a card with the 10 commandments on my desk, is (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
