Ohio judge can't post Ten Commandments in courtroom

[§outh§tar]

CINCINNATI — An Ohio judge cannot post the Ten Commandments in his courtroom because it violates the Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to uphold a lower court's decision that ordered Judge James DeWeese of Richland County Common Pleas Court in Mansfield to remove a Ten Commandments poster he displayed in his courtroom.

DeWeese also had a poster of the Bill of Rights in his Mansfield courtroom. He put the words "the rule of law" atop both posters, contending they are part of the historic foundation for modern law.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued to challenge the July 2000 display of the Ten Commandments, arguing that its posting in a public courtroom gave it the appearance of an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

DeWeese failed to establish a legally permissible secular reason for displaying the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, Judges Joseph Hood and R. Guy Cole Jr. wrote in their majority ruling in ACLU of Ohio v. Ashbrook. They upheld a June 2002 decision by U.S. District Judge Kathleen O'Malley in Cleveland.

6th Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder dissented. Batchelder said she believes DeWeese is entitled to include the Ten Commandments in a display he uses to educate the public on the history and philosophy of law.

The American Center for Law and Justice, a public-interest law firm representing DeWeese, said it was disappointed with the appellate court's ruling and would appeal further.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13697
----------


This is the most unheard of thing in recent history! Is this very America not founded by the same Christians? What on earth do these people think the law is based on?

What do you guys think, is this a ridiculous ruling or is it a ridiculous ruling?

 

[Raithere]

This is the most unheard of thing in recent history! Is this very America not founded by the same Christians?

Quite frankly, no. This is not and has never been a Christian nation although some people imagine it is.

What on earth do these people think the law is based on?

The People.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” – The Declaration of Independence

~Raithere

 

[Mystech]

Being that our legal system (as with the rest of the government) is supposedly a secular body I really don't see now this ruling is any surprise at all. You right wing evangelical Christian wackjobs cry bloody murder every time someone tells you that you can't force your views on people where it's inappropriate to do so, but if we put some other religion in the same place I can imagine the holy hell you'd raise. Imagine if we started posting the . . . what is it, five pillars of Islam in court houses, or better yet the wiccan creed, how well would that sit with you?

This is America, we are governed by the laws of our secular government, not by the rules of Christianity. Everyone regardless of religion is entitled to fair legal representation, and this monument certainly sends a message to the contrary.

Also, most of the founding fathers were "Deists" which is a bit more like an agnostic than a Christian, so claiming that this nation was founded by Christians is sort of a slippery claim.

 

[Tiassa]

This is the most unheard of thing in recent history! Is this very America not founded by the same Christians? What on earth do these people think the law is based on?

In addition to what Raithere has already pointed out, I wanted to make a side note here:

• In this instance and as regards issues pertaining to the Ten Commandments, "God" in the Pledge, and the theistic motto "In God We Trust," among others, Christian advocates do sometimes attempt to claim a "Christian heritage" in the United States that somehow deserves greater honor than any other tradition among our people. Yet when we attempt to evaluate the nature of that Christian heritage, despite evidence ranging from Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism to the everyday complicity of how many° Christians, we find the advocates in flight from that Christian heritage, attempting to divorce ethical underpinnings and traditional value assertions in American society from either their effects or their cause. In the case of the cause, I wonder how many of those advocates also assert that Christian heritage on behalf of the Pledge, the motto, or the Commandments? (Or abortion, or sex ed., or artistic issues?)

However, there are things, that requires direct address:

How is this the most unheard-of thing in recent history? We just went through this down in Alabama; the difference between a poster and a massive hunk of rock is academic at best.

Beyond that ... what's unheard-of?

It is a natural impossibility that a government should have a right to punish men for their vices; because it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess. They could not contribute to the government any rights, except such as they themselves possessed as individuals.

(Spooner, Vices, XII)

____________________

• Spooner, Lysander. "Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty." (1875) See http://lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

 

[Firefly]

But when you swear witnesses in, don't they swear on the Bible??

 

[WorriedAmerican]

Religion has absolutely no place in American government - including the courts, of course. Separation of church and state. Always. Period. It is less than irrelevant what the predominant religion of our founders was - they were wise enough to protect ALL of us from having religious views forced on us. They had quite a bit of experience in that regard as I think we can all recall from our history lessons. Many early [just as now] Americans were Christians. Many early Americans also "owned" slaves. Obviously, no modern Christian would say [or believe] that because our founders often had slaves, we should to. So why do they apply that same line of reasoning to whom we do -or don't- worship? As for everything from the issue of being sworn in on the Christian bible, to having the words 'under god' inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance - these were horribly un-American decisions. Separation of church and state. Period. I am not a Christian - why should I have to swear to someone else's god in order for my testimony to be considered reliable? Why should I have to mention someone else's god when I pledge allegiance to the country of my birth [and the country that I love]?? I would be fascinated to see the reaction of today's Christian if they were forced to swear to Buddha [or any other religious icon/figure/god] before taking part in a legal proceeding. It is ridiculous. It is wrong. It is very definitely un-American. Our government is supposed to of, by, and for the people - ALL of the people. When we allow our state run institutions to feature/endorse one religion, we are, quite obviously, saying that any other religion or belief system is less valuable or respected. Excluding others as a policy of state, whether it's because of race, height, color, religion, or favorite snack food, is diametrically opposed to everything that has made this country's ideology of freedom and respect for the individual great.

 

[okinrus]

I believe that someone gets to choose what they swear on, including nothing at all.

As for the "separation of Church and State," where is it in the constitution? It comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a baptist minister, but I will agree that it's a valid interpretation insofar as it's taken the right way. An enforced ban on *individual* expression of religion within goverment is not freedom of religion. In fact, it's state sponsered atheism.

 

[Raithere]

As for the "separation of Church and State," where is it in the constitution? It comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a baptist minister, but I will agree that it's a valid interpretation insofar as it's taken the right way. An enforced ban on *individual* expression of religion within goverment is not freedom of religion. In fact, it's state sponsered atheism.

There is a clear distinction between the individual and the government no matter how much you'd like to blur the line. To put a fine line on it, if the Judge wants to hang the poster on his office wall that is one thing but when the Judge puts the poster up in the courtroom, where the official seat of authority is it becomes another matter.

The ironic thing is that the separation of Church and State was conceived for the protection of religion. The Government is secular not in opposition to religion but in order that the people governed are assured the freedom to choose for themselves. It is that which allows each of us to practice in whatever way we choose. Christians, it seems, would rather ignore history and change this, yet they cannot even agree amongst themselves upon a common practice, so much so that many of the first colonists were Christians fleeing the persecution of other Christians. This should illuminate the inherent problem for you.

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

"I don't like abortion," Kerry said. "I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist. ... We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

Should we obey the law or do the right thing? Your pick.

Might as well give all atheists free lunches so that they won't have to use dollar bills.. you can't please everyone, might as well carry on and do the right thing.

@ Raithere

If it has not and never has been a Christian nation, then what is it? Atheist? Agnostic?

 

[okinrus]

To put a fine line on it, if the Judge wants to hang the poster on his office wall that is one thing but when the Judge puts the poster up in the courtroom, where the official seat of authority is it becomes another matter.

I was puting my comment as a general principle. In this case, however,the way the judge put up the poster would be viewed as a statement of the goverment rather than his own statement. This would seem to be under ordinary misrepresentation of goverment. In fact, the Ten Commandments aren't even a symbol of any particular religion, though they could be viewed historical.

Nevertheless, the basis to freedom of religion is that one is allowed to express his own religion fully as long as it does not infringe upon someone else's right to religion or breaks some other law. Hence, you must put up with people, like Bush, who make their decisions based upon religion, so as the consequence respects religious freedom.

 

[top mosker]

At least this judge had the ten commandments in his court. One of our local judges quotes Superman in his.

Remember, these are the people that hold our freedoms in their hand...
*shiver*

 

[zanket]

The ridiculous thing about this ruling is that part of it did not remove Judge James DeWeese from the bench. Why should the public be spending millions of dollars on repeats of the Alabama case? These Ten Commandments-judges are clearly breaking the law and they should all automatically suffer the same fate as the Alabama Supreme Court judge. Just because coins have "In God We Trust" on them does not mean that a judge can unilaterally incorporate extra religion into the courtroom.

 

[Mystech]

But when you swear witnesses in, don't they swear on the Bible??

A rather anachronistic and rather inappropriate gesture, yes. Also I don't believe that swearing on the bible is a requirement so long as some sort of fitting oath is sworn (can anyone back me up, or educate me more on this). In any case our legal system does not require that anyone give a damn about what happens to be in that book.

 

[Mystech]

Excluding others as a policy of state, whether it's because of race, height, color, religion, or favorite snack food, is diametrically opposed to everything that has made this country's ideology of freedom and respect for the individual great.

Amen brother! It's simply not the place of the government to take stances on such flimsy and practically arbitrary social concerns, and certainly not their place to single out any people of a particular persuasion as being more entitled to democracy than any others. Any state recognition and endorsement of any particular religion is too much.

I don't have a problem specifically with Christianity, I think that like many religions it can be a good thing if used wisely, I but it's rather unique position in our country makes it a natural target for my ire. I don't care how many American's happen to be Christian, America was never a project in setting up a governing body for Christians, it's a noble attempt to govern all of the people within our boarders (well ok and often outside of them) regardless of religion race creed and all that.

 

[Mystech]

In fact, the Ten Commandments aren't even a symbol of any particular religion, though they could be viewed historical.

They're a pretty unambiguous symbol of the Abrahamic religions, and in the context quite obviously a Christian symbol, or have you forgotten the second commandment? It's entirely improper for any government building to imply that a person entering should worship this god or that.

Nevertheless, the basis to freedom of religion is that one is allowed to express his own religion fully as long as it does not infringe upon someone else's right to religion or breaks some other law. Hence, you must put up with people, like Bush, who make their decisions based upon religion, so as the consequence respects religious freedom.

It's always been my own humble opinion that freedom of religion does not extend to being able to force your own arbitrarily contrived religious views and values upon others. That especially true for elected officials. Just because you may have the power does not mean you should use it. In fact that quote from John Kerry that South Star just posted actually makes me like the guy quite a bit more and makes me feel a bit better about having to vote for him this November.

While you rail on about who has the right to impose their views on which non-believers, imagine yourself in a nation where all of the elected officials just happen to be Muslims (maybe it's the latest trend in Washington or something). How the hell are you going to feel when the cops have to start telling you that women need to wear burkas while traveling outside, all men must grow beards, and that it's sinful wrong and Un-American to behave in any other way?

 

[okinrus]

They're a pretty unambiguous symbol of the Abrahamic religions, and in the context quite obviously a Christian symbol

There's things the judge could have done to make it a historical symbol. For instance, if the Ten Commandments were hanging next to the Hammurabi Code. Then, the judge would be showing the historical progression of law. But I don't think just hanging it infringes on anyone's religion. Rather, it's a case of the individual proporting a view not held(and not able to be held) by the court as the court's.

In fact that quote from John Kerry that South Star just posted actually makes me like the guy quite a bit more and makes me feel a bit better about having to vote for him this November.

If Kerry truly believed abortion was not wrong, that would be one thing. We'd merely say he's mistaken. What makes me angry is that he believes it's wrong(killing of human life) yet will overlook this belief because so-and-so says it's article of faith. Who exactly says it's an article of faith but religion? I don't even think the Catholic church believes its an article of faith but a part of the natural law.

 

[§outh§tar]

There's things the judge could have done to make it a historical symbol. For instance, if the Ten Commandments were hanging next to the Hammurabi Code. Then, the judge would be showing the historical progression of law. But I don't think just hanging it infringes on anyone's religion. Rather, it's a case of the individual proporting a view not held(and not able to be held) by the court as the court's.


If Kerry truly believed abortion was not wrong, that would be one thing. We'd merely say he's mistaken. What makes me angry is that he believes it's wrong(killing of human life) yet will overlook this belief because so-and-so says it's article of faith. Who exactly says it's an article of faith but religion? I don't even think the Catholic church believes its an article of faith but a part of the natural law.

My thoughts exactly. Brings to mind the story of Antigone. Should we do what is right, or do what the law says?

I doubt posting the Code of Hammurabi would ruffle any feathers. The part that troubles people is having to associate the Law with God, in turn, advocating atheism which has no God.

 

[WorriedAmerican]

Why are so many [not saying this is true of anyone here.....] people that are anti-choice also pro-death penalty?

Also......"While you rail on about who has the right to impose their views on which non-believers, imagine yourself in a nation where all of the elected officials just happen to be Muslims (maybe it's the latest trend in Washington or something). How the hell are you going to feel when the cops have to start telling you that women need to wear burkas while traveling outside, all men must grow beards, and that it's sinful wrong and Un-American to behave in any other way? - Mystech

-----Okinrus - What is your response to this? It didn't seem to be addressed in your last reply.

Also Okinrus , as to the 'separation of church and state' thing - I never intended to imply [nor do I think I really did] that the words 'separation of church and state' appear in the Constitution as such. It is, however, a rather simple and concise way of phrasing the idea [Kudos to Mr.Jefferson ]. To the contrary, the Christian God is scarcely mentioned in the text at all. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the folks that wanted Him/Her to figure prominently into our laws and government were given a very resounding 'Nay!' [and many then took an anti-Constitutional/anti-Federalist stance in response.......].

---- "I don't have a problem specifically with Christianity, I think that like many religions it can be a good thing if used wisely, I but it's rather unique position in our country makes it a natural target for my ire. I don't care how many American's happen to be Christian, America was never a project in setting up a governing body for Christians, it's a noble attempt to govern all of the people within our borders - Mystech - Hear! Hear!
---- " To put a fine line on it, if the Judge wants to hang the poster on his office wall that is one thing but when the Judge puts the poster up in the courtroom, where the official seat of authority is it becomes another matter." - Raithere - Exactly! Very well said......
---- "I believe that someone gets to choose what they swear on, including nothing at all." - Okinrus - Now that I read that, I think that's true Okinrus......I'll try to find out for sure, but I think you're right......

 

[okinrus]

Why are so many [not saying this is true of anyone here.....] people that are anti-choice also pro-death penalty?

Were not . Since most pro-choicers are conservative, most are for the death penalty.

Actually, the separation between state and religion is not so much Jefferson's creation but Roger Williams in reaction against puritanism.

Okinrus - What is your response to this? It didn't seem to be addressed in your last reply.

Ultimately, on some issues that are irrespective to morals, I lean towards the majority deciding. Hence, I have no problems if a muslim country decides that women must wear burkas and the men dress appropriately. If the majority of women and men want people to dress a certain way--what they call modest--then that's none of my business. After all, if 90% of the population wore burkas but a few did not, that would make the Islamic requirement worthless. Ultimately, you must differentiate between customs that do not infringe on someone's religious freedom, such as apparel, and others which do. Some tribe in the rainforest might think we are just as strangely dressed as an Islamic women wearing the burka. The point is: if the majority of people want each other to wear burkas, then why not?

I'm pretty sure. One of the preachers on TBN asked a lawyer in the crowd why they take oaths on the Bible, and the lawyer responded that not all people swear on the Bible.(I think the exact wording might be different depending on the state. Some states might require you not to swear on anything. Incidently, the whole ritual with the defendent raising their palm outward was a carry-over from earlier period. Without paper records, the criminals wore their crimes as tattoos.

 

[WorriedAmerican]

I wasn't referring to the concept, merely to the specific phrase itself.

Jefferson wrote [in the letter that you mentioned previously, written not to a minister, but to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut ] "I contemplate with solemn 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.".

I was not saying that the entire concept of separation originated w/ Jefferson.