The Blue Board

Then, based on the First Amendment, it would be legal for the school to do so and any moves to stop that would have to come locally. According to the Establishment Clause, the Federal Government can't legally interfere.

Who is prohibited from doing what?

Broad sense? WTF? You're the one trying to interpret it in a "broad sense". I'm talking about taking fifteen clearly written words and telling me what they say. You can't even do that.

Just FYI...

TJ-2-F-AU570 posts
OmegaBuckeye said...
That's funny, I thought it was right there in the First Amendment.
You might want to try reading it, then, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

It's within your rights to think that the courts have wildly misinterpreted the Establishment Clause over the past century or so, but the fact remains that it is presently illegal for public schools to display the Ten Commandments. Whether you think that's right or wrong, that's the way things are, and everyone (especially all the people in charge of school districts) knows that's the way things are. So when a school decides to post the Ten Commandments and then decides to go to battle in court on this settled legal issue when they're called on it, they deserve whatever happens to them.

While true, Christianity is not the "official religion" of the United States. Much like English is not the official language. Though most (still most?) people speak it, we are devoid of an official language, and it's the same situation with the 10 Commandments.

Now, if they want to display the 10 Commandments along with a plaque that signifies the historical significance, namely that it is where some of our laws were derived by the Founding Fathers, than by all means do so. Because then it becomes a historical document. Just displaying them on their own, however, comes with the context of solely religious law thus perpetuating the idea that Americans are bound by Christian law rather than simply influenced by them. We are ruled by American law, not Christian law. I know the difference seems subtle and nit-picky, but it's what separates us from a Theocracy.

Because the law of the land isn't being enforced, but when it does they will be taken down like they should be.

This is it exactly. You can either allow all of it, or none of it. That means if you want to post the ten commandments, then you also have to allow for shari'a law, wiccan texts, hindu doctrine, etc... Satanists could make a case for displaying their texts as well.

If someone wants to use the First Amendment to limit someone other than who itbwas meant to limit, in this case, Congress, there is a process for doing that. It is called amending the Constitution, but that can't be done in this case because the First Amendment, as well as the remainder of the Bill of Rights, was never intended to be and can never be used to limit anyone other than the Federal Government. That limitation of the Federal Government was the reason those 10 Amendments were included and this document would have never been ratified had they been left out. Congress knows this and therefore would never attempt, much less succeed in amending the First Amendment to something that places restrictions on anyone but itself. Your attempts to do so through the courts are simply pathetic.

Your attempts to muddy the waters here are laughable because this clause is so crystal clear, you can never succeed. Every single thing you have said about the First Amendment has been blatantly and patently wrong. You have done nothing but prove that you don't even remotely understand the defining document of our nation. You're all a bunch of fools.

C'mon lamp, don't be like that. I don't want kite to have to close another political/religious thread because we all just start insulting each other.

Those displays were erected in response to that very thing, as an acceptable alternative. As far as what happened with Moore, you sound like you don't understand how that went down, exactly. It's not like the courts can send the Marshalls into the State Capitol to tear down historical displays.

The First Amendment clearly limits Congress and no one else. It doesn't say "Congress and public schools". It doesn't say "Congress and other taxpayer funded organizations". It says "Congress".

What Congress is prohibited from doing is two fold:

A) Congress is prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
B) Congress is prohibited from prohibiting the free exercise of religion

That's the establishment clause. It doesn't apply to any State, any State Court, any State School or any person, place, or thing that isn't Congress.

When the school displays the 10 Commandments, nothing in your precious "establishment clause has been violated". Congress has made no laws period, much less any laws establishing a religion. When the Federal Government gets involved in forcing them to remove that, though, they're pushing the limits of the second part.

Guess you caught me

That's a very good point. While the document can be referenced as historical, showing parts are in fact actual laws today certainly would show it's relevance as a historical document. That's a really good point. And the fact that references to parts strictly related to God, or worshipping God, are not in our laws today, actually provides an interesting history of the transition from the Mayflower Compact to where we are today. That does indeed have historical relevance and perspective