Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

There are so many subtle considerations that cannot be divorced from the debate and still be intellectually honest. For instance, Federal offices close and there is no mail service on Sunday. Why Sunday? It's a weekly Christian celebration and has been since the Third Century A.D.. I can't think of any other major religious group who celebrates Sunday as a religious day. Thanksgiving was instituted by Christians to give thanks; Christmas is the day Christians celebrate the birth of Christ. Yet our federal government includes all these in their official holiday calendar while the mail continues to be delivered on Yom Kippor.

1. And God spake all these words, saying

2. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

12. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

13. Thou shalt not kill.

14. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15. Thou shall not steal.

16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

awwww, ehBeth, you intervened in the fight!

And you still haven't answered my question about why it's so important to you to have the Ten Commandments craved in stone at the Court House. Or if you have, I've missed it

Yes, you missed it, for I said that it makes no difference one way or the other to me whether that particular art object is in that particular place. It is after all a simple work of art meaningful to those who subscribe to the engraved words; meaningless to those who don't; infuriating and/or a matter of concern only to a small minority with an anti-religioous religion.

I do have a problem with the court insisting that two or more religions be represented because to me this comes perilously close to its own kind of 'establishment of religion'.

. . . I have disagreed with many of the court's rulings of course. I know too many judges who have gotten it wrong on other stuff to believe judges are infallible, including the Supremes. And, I think too often an activist court goes with its instincts rather than tradition, custom, or former undestanding of the law. None of this religious symbolism on public grounds was a problem for roughly the first two hundred years of the existence of this country, but these kinds of cases have only come up in the last several decades. There also seems to be a peculiar hypocrisy in making Chrsitmas, a celebration decidedly rooted in Christian belief, a Federal holiday while prohibiting symbols of the celebration, etc.

But I am looking forward to the Supremes finally taking a stand on this issue. And I hope the ruling they come up with is compelling for all.

This litigation concerns the constitutionality of two recurring holiday displays located on public property in downtown Pittsburgh. The first is a creche placed on the Grand Staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse. The second is a Chanukah menorah placed just outside the City-County Building, next to a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty. . . .

* * *

The government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, but under the First Amendment it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus.

In sum, Lynch teaches that government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine.

[THUS, the lone display of a creche next to the grand staircase in the Courthouse was in violation of the First Amendment.]

* * *

The display of the Chanukah menorah in front of the City-County Building may well present a closer constitutional question. The menorah, one must recognize, is a religious symbol: it serves to commemorate the miracle of the oil as described in the Talmud. But the menorah's message is not exclusively religious. The menorah is the primary visual [492 U.S. 573, 614] symbol for a holiday that, like Christmas, has both religious and secular dimensions.

Moreover, the menorah here stands next to a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty. While no challenge has been made here to the display of the tree and the sign, their presence is obviously relevant in determining the effect of the menorah's display. The necessary result of placing a menorah next to a Christmas tree is to create an "overall holiday setting" that represents both Christmas and Chanukah - two holidays, not one.

The mere fact that Pittsburgh displays symbols of both Christmas and Chanukah does not end the constitutional inquiry. If the city celebrates both Christmas and Chanukah as religious holidays, then it violates the Establishment Clause. [492 U.S. 573, 615] The simultaneous endorsement of Judaism and Christianity is no less constitutionally infirm than the endorsement of Christianity alone.

Accordingly, the relevant question for Establishment Clause purposes is whether the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah has the effect of endorsing both Christian and Jewish faiths, or rather simply recognizes that both Christmas and Chanukah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society. Of the two interpretations of this particular display, the latter seems far more plausible and is also in line with Lynch.

The Christmas tree, unlike the menorah, is not itself a religious symbol. Although Christmas trees once carried religious connotations, today they typify the secular celebration of Christmas. . . .


The mayor's sign further diminishes the possibility that the tree and the menorah will be interpreted as a dual endorsement of Christianity and Judaism. The sign states that during the holiday season the city salutes liberty. Moreover, the sign draws upon the theme of light, common to both Chanukah and Christmas as winter festivals, and links that theme with this Nation's legacy of freedom, which allows an American to celebrate the holiday season in whatever way he wishes, religiously or otherwise. While no sign can disclaim an overwhelming message of endorsement, see Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S., at 41 , an "explanatory plaque" may confirm that in particular contexts the government's association with a religious symbol does not represent the government's sponsorship of religious beliefs. See Lynch, 465 U.S., at 707 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). Here, the mayor's sign serves to confirm what the context already reveals: that the display of the menorah is not an endorsement of religious faith but simply a recognition of cultural diversity. [492 U.S. 573, 620]

Given all these considerations, it is not "sufficiently likely" that residents of Pittsburgh will perceive the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah as an "endorsement" or "disapproval . . . of their individual religious choices."

Lola writes

Quote:

And you still haven't answered my question about why it's so important to you to have the Ten Commandments craved in stone at the Court House. Or if you have, I've missed it

Yes, you missed it, for I said that it makes no difference one way or the other to me whether that particular art object is in that particular place. It is after all a simple work of art meaningful to those who subscribe to the engraved words; meaningless to those who don't; infuriating and/or a matter of concern only to a small minority with an anti-religioous religion. My primary concern is that no group be able to force their religion on others--not the fanatical Christian fundamentalist, not the radical Islamo-facists, and not the fanatical anti-religious zealots. My concern, in other words, is that my constitutional right to the free exercise of religion not be infringed, nor will my government have any say in what that religion will be. So long as those principles endure, the intended purpose of the First Amendment will be quite safe.

Contained within these commandment are many statements that I do not honor. I don't honor them because I think there's no good reason to do so. But if these commandments, supposedly issued by God, were carved into a huge marble monument in the Court House, this would declare an official position about Sunday and how I spend it, among other things. So it's a no no.

Your argument, Foxfire, seems to me to be nothing other than an excuse to get around the Constitutional mandate to have no official state religion. There is to be no majority rule in matters of religion. Enjoy your time in the sun, Foxy, hold onto your hopes that you and others like you can drag us back to the days of pre-Enlightenment, get your fill now because it's not going to last for long.

If you and your fellow fanatical Christians manage to take control of the courts, as you may be able to do, you're doing nothing but setting the stage for the sixties again. And about this, I can't say I mind at all.

Those of us who are passionate that the anti-religious fanatics not be allowed to strip public venues of anything that might possibly be religious are defending our constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion. To allow us that right takes nothing away from those who do not have any religious faith or who think the religious are idiots and it requires nothing of them but their noninterference.

I agree with Debra that 'intent' is everything. If the intent is to convert you to Christianity or Judaism or Squeegeeism or whatever, then it is unconstitutional. . . .

The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, 3 and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one's parents, killing or murder, [449 U.S. 39, 42] adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. See Exodus 20: 12-17; Deuteronomy 5: 16-21. Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day. See Exodus 20: 1-11; Deuteronomy 5: 6-15.

This is not a case in which the Ten Commandments are integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like. Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 225. Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational function. If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.

It does not matter that the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are financed by voluntary private contributions, for the mere posting of the copies under the auspices of the legislature provides the "official support of the State . . . Government" that the Establishment Clause prohibits. 374 U.S., at 222 ; see Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431 (1962). 4 Nor is it significant that the Bible verses involved in this case are merely posted on the wall, rather than read aloud as in Schempp and Engel, for "it is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment." Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 225. We conclude that Ky. Rev. [449 U.S. 39, 43] Stat. 158.178 (1980) violates the first part of the Lemon v. Kurtzman test, and thus the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. 5