The American Center for Law and Justice is asking the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Circuit Court's decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, holding that the city cannot refuse to erect a monument to Summum's Seven Aphorisms. The court's decision is based on the idea that the government cannot give favorable treatment to one religion while ignoring other faiths, but the ACLJ is arguing that government entities aren't obligated to give balance to expressions of its own policies and views. So, each of the Ten Commandments expresses the perspective of the government?
According to an ACLJ press release:
This is a critically important case that gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to rectify a lower court’s very twisted interpretation of the First Amendment. The lower court’s decision misses the crucial distinction between government speech and private speech. The government has to be neutral toward private speech, but it does not have to be neutral in its own speech. For example, a government cannot censor anti-patriotic speech, but that doesn’t mean the government itself has to utter unpatriotic messages. [emphasis added]
It is true that the government is not obligated to give equal time to "unpatriotic messages" when it promotes patriotic messages and that's because the "patriotic messages" express official government positions. To use another example, a city council that puts up a banner stating "remember to recycle" in order to express their official support for recycling are not obligated to hang a second banner stating "don't bother recycling" in order to present a "balanced" face on the recycling question.
If this is a valid analogy to the Ten Commandments, however, it can only be because those commandments are expressing an official government position akin to "remember to recycle" or "support the troops." Such a monument cannot be a mere nod towards the alleged role of the Ten Commandments in law and society, but an statement of government policy. That, however, would mean that a religious text stating religious ideas are being made government policy — and that's only legitimate in a theocracy. It's certainly not permitted in any society where church and state are separated.
The Tenth Circuit confused this rule when it said private parties have a First Amendment right to put up the monuments of their choosing in a city park, unless the city takes away all other donated monuments. This ruling, if left unchecked, would ultimately force local governments to remove long-standing and well established patriotic, religious and historical displays. The ramifications of this flawed decision go well beyond Utah and affect every American city and town. It’s time for the Supreme Court to step in and bring an end to a dangerous interpretation of free speech and equal access.
We also contend that the lower court made a serious error confusing government speech with private speech. Our petition states: “When private speakers have the right to use government property to speak, there is a speech forum. But when, as here, the donor cedes and the government accepts ownership and control of something from a private party, that 'something’ is no longer private property. It becomes government property. And if it is a message-bearing 'something,’ any communication thenceforth is government speech, not private speech. No 'forum’ for private speech is created.”
“Unlike in private speech cases, accepting a monument for permanent display as the government’s own property does not require accepting other monuments in the name of content- or viewpoint-neutrality,” the brief adds. “Nor does the government’s acceptance of a donated monument require that a government park be turned into a cluttered junkyard of monuments contributed by all comers. In short, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny.” [emphasis added]
So, a Ten Commandments monument expresses a "viewpoint" on some matter in which the government has no obligation to be "neutral." The ideas being expressed in the Ten Commandments are, by virtue of the government accepting and displaying the monument, "government speech" which the government owns and controls. I can't find much of anything to disagree with in that.
If the statement "I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other gods before me" is the "viewpoint" of the government and represents an official government position being communicated by everyone who reads the monument, then the ACLJ has basically just conceded the arguments typically offered by critics who are trying to keep church and state separate. The ACLJ may approve of the government taking such an official position because that advances the cause of a Christian theocracy, but thus far it's not an argument that the courts have agreed with.
This is delicious. It does seem the ACLJ has conceded to our arguments. Thus, the US government officially endorses the notion that we should not covet our neighbor’s “manservant”; i.e. slave, a tacit admission that slavery is permissible.
It’ll be fun to watch the ACLJ try to wiggle out of this one, as we both know they’re going to slime, slither, and slide in their attempt to say “well, of course, endorsing slavery isn’t what we meant, harrumph! harrumph!”
“It’ll be fun to watch the ACLJ try to wiggle out of this one, as we both know they’re going to slime, slither, and slide in their attempt to say “well, of course, endorsing slavery isn’t what we meant, harrumph! harrumph!”
”
Perhaps they are all christian reconstructionists, many of whom are pro-slavery.
Manservant does not necessarily mean slave. there are a lot of people that have paid servants.
True. That’s why “manservant” is such a dishonest mistranslation. The original is “slave,” not “manservant.” People who rely on the King James version for their understanding of what’s in the Bible are among the most misinformed.
Thanks, Austin, for the backup on the “slave v. manservant” question.
Even if “manservant” meant a paid servant, paid how so? Room and board, i.e. allowed to sleep in the stable and given a miserly slip of gruel once a day? That would have been a fair day’s wages in those times for a “manservant” — nothing but a euphemism for slave, or “indentured servant”, if that makes it more palatable to Steve at #3.
The passages from the Old Testament referring to the Israelites’ conquests of their (God’s) enemies in countless instances well document the taking of those conquered as slaves. At least, that is, the ones that were allowed to survive. Most of whom were virginal women, by the way. Provided, of course, that one believes these fairytales.
That the Bible, in both the OT and the NT, expressly endorses slavery is undeniable.
A clarification: Not that I think Steve at #3 was necessarily arguing against me; he simply made a point and it was valid as far as it went, but Austin helped to further clarify my point.
That said, here’s a link to what the Bible does have to say about slavery:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html
Enjoy (if you make it past the nausea).
Here’s how I see the ACLJ’s filing; First the admission that the government may discriminate in a case of religious preference or history,Second it is an admission of actual discriminatory practice that could seek a serious remedy. Third is a heretofore unseen revelation of truth by a Christian law firm and not just any truth but a constitutional truth. This will certainly have consequences during the ongoing debate about the separation of church and state.
I find it remarkable that it took so long for a Christian organization to recognize reality and actually admit to it. It shows the strength of the separation argument too in that after a number of years of litigation comes this admission to a truth apparent long ago.
The ACLJ and Jay Sekulow appear to be classic hypocrites. Their website regarding this issue states “the ACLJ would faithfully stand for your freedom of speech” and on the same page state that other points of view should not be allowed. I thought our founding fathers intent was to guarantee freedom of speech not for some, but for all. Is not Summum guaranteed that same right? I cannot think of more blatant discrimination than this.
The ACLJ’s website states that they will be reporting on freedom of religion in Turkey. What about freedom of religion in the good ole US of A? What about Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ’s attempt to censor the religious speech of Summum? Their stance is freedom of religion, as long as it is their religion.
Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ jump up and down, wave their hands wildly, scream and shout, get everyone excited, and create a hysterical and mistaken belief that disaster is coming should Summum be allowed to express its point of view when such is not the case. They use Chicken Little “the sky is falling” tactics to solicit donations from people so that they can push their point of view above all others. That is a very dishonest thing to do.
Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ are hypocrisy and discrimination at its best. If they are representatives and examples of what it means to be Christian, then I am embarrased to call myself a Christian.
DP
It would appear that that atheists simply acknowledge that there was speech used in the Bible and that any gov. support of any speech would be banned in their view.Even if The ten commandments are a symbol of law regardless of weather it’s religious or not.
Since words are used in the Bible then in order to support the atheist own believe they must stop using word since they are used in the Bible.
In addition Christians Celebrate 2008 years after the death of Christ with the Christian calendar so stop using that as well if you intent to boycott everything that is religious.The word Good is in the Bible. But religion does not have to be subjects that only discuss God, but also higher powers, and also theories in general such as evolution which is a religion in itself. But definition religion is not only the believe in god but a believe or theory in something using a systematic method to describe which cannot be otherwise seen or tangibly touched etc.In fact you need a great deal of faith to be atheist since even this religion cannot be seen or proven, but only the concept which must be express with systematic believe system. Well something to think about anyhow. I challenge anyone to prove evolution which still cannot be proven.Now that there is DNA available which actually disproves scientifically many of the things evolutionists have used in their proof system for years. And even after these topics have been disprove they are still being taught. Why. Because of their believe system which by systematic method they believe based on nothing but faith alone much like an atheist. Call it what you want but it’s just another religion.
WHAT? It is virtually impossible to argue with incongruous babble! Either confusion is the intent, or the author is confused. Either way a waste of verbage! Please reserve your gibberish for the congregation, they wish to misinterpret confused as esoteric.
It is usually counter productive criticising
a “Posters” poor language and grammatical skills unless it pertains to the argument.
In the case of Agent 86 I really think that this is the case. When someone with such a poor education tries to make scientific statements, and observations, way beyond their educational qualifications it is as counterproductive as their arguments, and very probably,my observations are to Agent 86.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
Agent86,
It would appear that that Christians simply acknowledge that there was speech used in the Bible and that any gov. support of any speech is OK in their view. Even if theres more than one The ten commands in the Bible so you dont know which ones they mean. Even jesus was confused about that. See Matthew 19:19 Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20 they show differnt 10 commands than OT and each other. Why. How can you say 10 commands when you dont even say which 10 commands you want gov to support. Anyway you are not good Christian if you use names of days Thursday Friday Saturday which refer to those other gods Thor Friya and Saturn. You cnat prove god wrote bible anyone could have. Plus christians stole from pagans to make there relgion. So you really have nothing to stand on.
Agent 86, I’ve got to admit that I took a battering trying to read through your message. The cognitive dissonance was impressive, at least from this end. You probably didn’t notice it from your end.
Yours forever,
God
Agent 86,
You do realize that words were around BEFORE the Bible was written, right?
You do realize that almost all Christian symbols, images, rituals, and “sacred holidays” originated with pagan religions and teachings that were around BEFORE your Christianity, right?
You do realize that pagans had a set of golden rules by which their society lived many many years before the “official” 10 Commandments were adopted by Christians, right? Morality and values were around long before the big 10.
Obviously, you do not know a thing about evolution. PLEASE do some study and don’t just stand up and say something you heard someone else say. DNA supports evolution and evolution IS provable. Can you say the same thing about things in your Bible?
If you want to believe dogma, fine, but have the good sense to admit it IS dogma and cannot be proven in the same the scientific realm. Be intelligent enough to draw the line.
What, no comments on Mr. Buchmans babble?
English is most likely not writer Agent86’s native/primary language. I could be wrong. But even so, I must ask why you would bash rather than debate the only response from the opposing side? I find it makes for a boring conversation…like a bunch of academics agreeing with one another…boring. Are you here to argue out of insecurity or to educate out of responsibility.
However, I must admit that George’s response earned an obligatory smirk.
Best of luck with your blog Austin. I pray it provides the forum of relief your searching for.