• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"The Ten Commandments Defense Act"

Brown

Penultimate Amazing
Brown
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
12,984
This is a press release from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I have not yet found confirmation of this act of shameless grandstanding in the mainstream media.
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), along with a few of his House colleagues, today scheduled a press briefing on Capitol Hill to trumpet the “The Ten Commandments Defense Act.” Aderholt called the measure a vital piece of legislation that must be passed promptly, especially in light of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s inability to keep a large Ten Commandments monument on public display in the Alabama Judicial Building.

According to Aderholt and his supporters, including Reps. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the nation’s laws are based in large part on the Ten Commandments and government officials may display the Decalogue wherever they please.
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly hope that Congress (having nothing better to do) settles the question of which version of the Ten Commandments is the correct one, otherwise the law might be unconstitutionally vague.
 
Just to add more proof that there are, in fact, people in power in this country who are TOTALLY ignorant of what the Constitution actually says, here's more verification of the Ten Commandments Defense Act.

A minister touting it.

The House of Representatives passed this monstrocity?

The actual act itself

And here, I thought only the Southern Baptist Fundies were in on the act!

It's a little older than I thought.

Okay, no more links. Obviously, this is real. These people are trying to force this down our collective throat. It is unconstitutional, obviously grandstanding, and (as far as I'm concerned) sickening.

Now excuse me, I'm moving to Canada.
 
How can _anyone_ see this and not recognize it as "congress passing a law establishing religion..."?

Shoot, they can't even use the argument that "it's not congress, it is by popular vote." This _is_ congress.
 
This reminds me of the anti-flag burning amendment attempt made in the late 80's/early 90's. Hopefully, the process will continue to work and not let this version of mandated morality pass either.
 
pgwenthold said:
How can _anyone_ see this and not recognize it as "congress passing a law establishing religion..."?
Click to expand...

They try to hand-wave around that.

DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions thereof is hereby declared to be among the powers reserved to the States respectively.
Click to expand...

It might fly if they didn't mention one particular piece of religious dogma BY NAME. This clearly implies that other religion's documents are not so protected.

It might also fly if this bill weren't trying to do the job of the court.
 
I'm a little confused by all this. By my count there are 4 commandments that have corresponding secular laws. That's not even half. 2 of the 4 are illegal only under special circumstance and 1 is normally illegal but is allowable under some conditions. So why do these people keep going on about the 10C as the basis for secular law?


6 Don't kill people. Even this one is considered optional under the law with exceptions for execution, self defense, and war.

7 Don't commit adultry. Now legal in many states.

8 Don't steal. This is the only one of the 4 that is illegal all the time everywhere.

9. Don't lie - is only illegal (secularly) in special situations.

And let's not fail to notice that all of these fall in the last half of the list of 10C.
 
Occasional Chemist said:



It might also fly if this bill weren't trying to do the job of the court.
Click to expand...

I think that is the crux of the matter. The bill's text seems to want to declare constitutional law, changing the effect of the 14th and 1st amendments in that this particular expression is not covered by the establishment clause. As a legal matter such a statute would be worthless, as Congress can not change the Constitution by simply passing a law, they have to pass a Constitutional Amendment. This proposed bill is in theory no better than if passed a law saying that the president now serves a life term instead of a four-year term.

I think the bill's proponents are fully aware of this and know the Courts will reject the bill as unconstitutional. That way in the next election the Republicans can cynically claim our courts are too liberal, hate God, etc., when in reality I'd hate to think anyone believes Congress has the power to change the constitution by a simple majority vote.
 
The Republicans on this board will recognized this "act" for what it is. It's purpose is not to get passed, it's a political ploy to define an issue and paint the opposition in an unfavorable way. This is no different than flag amendments, pledge of allegiance laws, prayer in school bills etc. That fact that it's not constitutional is irrelevant. A majority of voters believe in God and believe in the 10 commandments, constitution be damned. Republicans have been looking and now have found another issue to counter the "it's the economy stupid" issue. This will be a big campaign issue, watch for it.

You can discuss the legal nature of the act right up through the next election and know you are 100% correct. The sad fact is too many Americans really don't give a damn about the constitution unless it's their rights that are violated.
 
DavidJames said:
The Republicans on this board will recognized this "act" for what it is. It's purpose is not to get passed, it's a political ploy to define an issue and paint the opposition in an unfavorable way. This is no different than flag amendments, pledge of allegiance laws, prayer in school bills etc. That fact that it's not constitutional is irrelevant. A majority of voters believe in God and believe in the 10 commandments, constitution be damned. Republicans have been looking and now have found another issue to counter the "it's the economy stupid" issue. This will be a big campaign issue, watch for it.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting take on the issue and I think you're probably correct. However, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the political supporters of the bill are dead serious about it.

I think the "gay marriage amendment" would probably fall under this category as well. Has anyone heard anything about that lately?
 
From the Simpsons:
Kid: "Hey, who left this garbage on the steps of Congress?"

Amendment To Be: "I'm not garbage...

[singing mode="School House Rocks"]
I'm an amendment to be,
Yeah, an amendment to be,
and I'm hoping that they'll ratify me.
See, there's a lot of flag burners
who have too much freedom.
I want to make it legal for
policemen to beat 'em,
'cause there's limits to our liberty.
'Least I hope and pray that there are,
'cause those liberal freaks go to faaaaar.
[/singing]

Kid: "But why don't they just make a law against flag burning?"

ATB: "Because that law would be unconstitutional, but if they change the constitution..."

Kid: "Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!"

ATB: "Now you're catching on!"

Congressman: "Good news! They've ratified you! You're in the Constitution!"

ATB: "Oh, Yeah! Door's open, boys!"
Click to expand...
 
Suddenly said:


I think that is the crux of the matter. The bill's text seems to want to declare constitutional law, changing the effect of the 14th and 1st amendments in that this particular expression is not covered by the establishment clause. As a legal matter such a statute would be worthless, as Congress can not change the Constitution by simply passing a law, they have to pass a Constitutional Amendment. This proposed bill is in theory no better than if passed a law saying that the president now serves a life term instead of a four-year term.
Click to expand...
I agree. The legal effect of this bill (if it were ever enacted) on actual disputes involving Ten Commandments displays would be more or less zero.
 
I know Congressman Aderholt (my sister was in his law school class, and he's spoken at some local bar meetings). My impression of him is that he is a hopelessly devout Christian fundie with extreme right-wing political views. His voting record tends to support this impression. When I have heard him speak, I have been stunned at the level of disconnect between his views and those of his audience. He isn't very perceptive about how his less than extreme right wing audiences simply fail to connect with his message.

You are right; this is shameless grandstanding. I wouldn't put too much stock in it. It won't go anywhere; even if it does, it will be struck down by the courts very quickly.

AS
 
I'm sure it's already been said here, but, George Carlin has a nice take on whittling down the ten commandments.

And SFG, you want to move to New Zealand, not Canada.
 
"You are right; this is shameless grandstanding"

It's that and more. Votes will be gained and lost over the grandstanding. At this point it's unknown how many and where. But rest assured, there are Christian organizations that will mobilize over this issue and will get fence sitters to vote their way. Those that have our view have no similarly capable grass roots organizations. Hyperbole works
 
"Islam is rising
The Christians mobilizing
The world is on it's elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message, and worships the creeds."
- "Armageddon Days (Are Here Again)", The The
 
From the Congressional Record (House) for yesterday, Sept. 5:
[Mr. PENCE (Mike Pence, Indiana-R] asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it was King Solomon of Israel who said two millennia and more ago that it was the whole duty of man to fear God and keep the Commandments.

Thanks to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), Congress has a chance to keep the Commandments in their place in the public square by passing the Ten Commandments Protection Act. With nearly 100 cosponsors, this act simply affirmatively asserts the provisions of the 10th amendment that say that State governments ought to be able to define how they display the Ten Commandments in State buildings. This is right under our law, that freedom of religion is not the freedom from religion, and respect for religion is enshrined in our history as we heard the prayer this morning and read "In God We Trust" on these walls, but it is mostly important because, despite the ethos of our times, God is still real and God still rewards nations that acknowledge him.

Let us adopt the Ten Commandments Protection Act and keep the Ten Commandments in their rightful place in the public square.
Click to expand...
With nearly 100 cosponsors, you can bet on the House hearing similar speeches at least weekly. :rolleyes:
 
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it was King Solomon of Israel who said two millennia and more ago that it was the whole duty of man to fear God and keep the Commandments.

Thanks to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), Congress has a chance to keep the Commandments in their place in the public square by passing the Ten Commandments Protection Act. With nearly 100 cosponsors, this act simply affirmatively asserts the provisions of the 10th amendment that say that State governments ought to be able to define how they display the Ten Commandments in State buildings. This is right under our law, that freedom of religion is not the freedom from religion, and respect for religion is enshrined in our history as we heard the prayer this morning and read "In God We Trust" on these walls, but it is mostly important because, despite the ethos of our times, God is still real and God still rewards nations that acknowledge him.

Let us adopt the Ten Commandments Protection Act and keep the Ten Commandments in their rightful place in the public square.
Click to expand...

The grandstanding is bad enough, but if any of these idiots actually believe what Pence is saying, then they have never read the First Amendment closely or studied any constitutional law.

Despite what Pence says, freedom of religion does indeed entail, and even depend upon, freedom from religion.

Remember the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The so-called "establishment clause" is the relevant portion in this context. "Respecting" in this usage means "concerning" or "regarding." Therefore, Congress cannot enact any law which concerns religion or religious practice. In other words, they are to ignore anything to do with religion when it comes to legislating.

Not too surprisingly, given the great political points to be scored, this is precisely what those 100 co-sponsors are trying to do--enact a law concerning Christians' supposed "right" to acknowledge their God in a public place. If this isn't a blatant legislative disregard for the Constitution, I don't know what is.

This short, simple answer is that Congress has absolutely no right to try to carve out some special right of states to decide under what conditions they may display the Ten Commandments in state buildings. The fact is they cannot lawfully do so when the primary purpose or effect is to acknowledge God or His supremacy. Congress is trying to subvert the Constitution for purely political reasons--big surprise.

If this foolish bit of pandering passes and Bush signs it into law, then we will undoubtedly see a legal challenge to it make it to the Supreme Court, where it will be resoundingly struck down. This so reminds me of the saga of the Flag Burning statute passed about 10 years ago.

When the eventual Ten Commandments law is struck down by the Supreme Court, we can expect Congress to rush to propose an amendment to the Constitution allowing for the public acknowledgment of God.

La plus ca change, la plus c'est la meme chose.

:rolleyes:

AS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom