Loading ...9th circuit upholds 10 Commandments display near Seattle
flockwoodThe court said the Everett, Washington display is more like the Texas 10 Commandments display (which was ruled constitutional in 2005) than the Kentucky 10 Commandments display (which was ruled unconstitutional in 2005). The court rejected the notion that the monument is promoting religion — at least with any degree of effectiveness. As it noted: “In its current location, the monument is shrouded by shrubberies and obscured from view unless one is standing close by.”
To read the entire opinion, click here.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Shrubberies are the plastic reindeer that make the display legal. If people could see it, I suppose it would be unconstitutional.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
There’s still a danger that guilt-conviction might occur to the Knights Who Say “Ni!”
March 28th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
The death on the cross ended the 10 commandment and all other laws of sin and death. And without knowledge people are trying to keep sin in the world which also was done away at the cross. Sin is the breaking of the Law of the Hebrew God: not the breaking of our states,or United States Laws. When we break those Laws they punish us: when Israel broke those Laws: Yahweh punished them. Keep those Laws seperated.
March 30th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Ya know, what I’d really love to see is a display with the original Ten Commandments on it (the only set of them specifically noted in Scripture as the “Ten Commandments”) in Exodus 34:10-28. Most people fighting over this issue are not even familiar with the nature of the subject.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
‘sin’ is disobedience to God-no matter what the law. The death of Jesus did not abolish sin-it fulfilled the Law of God. Sin will remain until Jesus returns. Evil will steadily increase, this is what Jesus meant in Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
It really doesn’t matter with me if the 10 commandments are displayed on public property or not, but when we do away with religious items, then people assume that it is ok to do as they please with no consequences. We did away with the blue laws of Kentucky, now people do not have a day of rest. Little by little people are allowing their rights to be destroyed. I have seen a lot of changes since my childhood, and kinda makes me wonder how long we will have until the bill of rights no longer exist.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Peach, please. Government did not abolish religion; it just refused to enforce it. Freedom of religion includes the freedom not to worship, and the freedom not to be taxed to pay for someone else’s religion. Seems reasonable enough.
My church still proclaims the 10 commandments and I’ll bet that yours does too. And if anyone tries to take away that precious right, the government will protect you. With assistance from the ACLU, of course.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Peach and Jose, the First Amendment has two clauses relating to religion — the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The Ten Commandments cases concern the establishment clause and to what extent a governmental entity can put up a religious display. The cases do not concern the free exercise clause, under which any church, business, or private individual can set up a display. No one’s free exercise of religion is being limited.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Jose and Larry: I did not say that the government abolished religion–They are however removing our “rights” slowly, methodically to the point that few even realizes that something was removed. my question is how long before they decide that the bill of rights does not pertain to anyone-therefore not needed.
btw–the bill of rights almost wasn’t in the beginning-because our forefathers thought this country would treat all equally-so therefore such laws would not be needed.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Peach, the biggest problem with the law is the same problem with the Bible, interpretation.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Larry, amen.
Pardon me, Peach. I missed the subtle distinction between “do away with” and “abolish”. When folks complain about “their rights being destroyed” it sometimes gets misinterpreted that way.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:14 pm
jose: I would think by now that you have somewhat of an idea that your condescending attitude goes over like a lead balloon.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
This whole thing has become a game. How many plastic reindeer do I have to include to be able to get away with a creche? How many historic documents do I have to add to the display to be able to include the ten commandments?
This is clearly motivated by the desire to promote religion through promoting the ten commandments, and that is the one thing that the government cannot do. Any claim that these displays are part of any legitimate secular educational purpose is pure pretext. Before the ten commandment craze began, you never saw anybody putting up secular displays that just happened to include religious documents.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:48 am
Caleb, I agree that it’s become a game, and one that wastes public resources. Courtrooms are not playgrounds. The officials who put up these displays know that they’re inviting a lawsuit. Also, the Ten Commandments are not incorporated into our laws.
However, there are some secular displays that have included religious documents, such as the frieze inside the Supreme Court, which, I believe, includes the receiving of the Ten Commandments as well as a depiction of Mohammed.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
You’re right, Larry, litigation is an expensive game to play, and unfortunately many of these county officials end up making the taxpayers liable not only for the county’s legal fees, but for the legal fees of those complaining about the displays. So, as usual, the people get hit twice. You’re right about the frieze in the Supreme Court, but I suspect that the ten commandment part of that is not readable, whereas I guarantee that the one in Seattle and now the one in Grayson County, Kentucky, had commandments that were quite readable, which was their point.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Some of us worring about something that don’t concern us. The Ten Commandment Law was given to the Israelites, and only the Israelites. They were the only ones that had to keep them: the Gentiles never had those Laws to keep. Jacob’s children had those Laws to make sin more sinful. “Whoever committeth sin trangresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the Law. (1 John3:4-9) We can get too busy and not read the Bible: are we can read and not understand. Fullfil the law means: to end them.(Matt. 5:17-18) “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the World.” (John 1:29-36) read Hebrew 9:12-15,Hebrew 7:11-28)
April 1st, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Caleb, I don’t have a picture of the Supreme Court frieze, but I had the same reaction you did, which is that it probably shows the receiving of the Ten Commandments but not their content. That’s an important distinction, since the frieze doesn’t communicate what’s on the tablets, only that this is an early source of laws. The more recent examples are clearly efforts to promote the content.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Pictures of the frieze are available on the Supreme Court website — http://www.supremecourtus.gov
The information sheet says, “Moses is depicted in the frieze holding two overlapping tablets written in Hebrew, representing the Ten Commandments. Partially visible from behind Moses’ beard are Commandments six through ten.”
Muhammad is holding the Qur’an and is described as follows, “The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.”
You’ve got to love that description.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 am
Caleb, Moses’ beard serves the same function as the shrubberies.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 am
Larry and Caleb: If we take religion out of the issue, what criteria would you all use to base the ‘foundation’ of our countries Laws on? It was my understanding that the founding fathers used the criteria of the ten commandants as such a basis-at least that was what I was taught in school, way before evolution took hold.
Ms Lasley: I try not to say that someone is misquoting or misrepresenting scripture (other than for Bart), I just do not understand your version of what sin is-sin is still in the world of unbelievers. It goes against God to ‘sin’ especially with fore-thought and then call yourself a disciple of Christ–as in to contemplate and carry out murder in the name of Jesus, as some religious sects have done in the past. Jesus says that if you belong to him, then it is not of you to do these things.
If adultery, murder, lies, stealing is not sin-then what do you call it?
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 am
Peach, the country’s legal system is based on English common law and the Constitution.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:12 am
What is English common law and the Constitution based on, Larry?
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Okay, Peach, you’ve suggested that the Ten Commandments are somehow the basis for either our laws or our government. It is neither. And it’s easy to prove that. Just put the Constitution of the US othe Ten Commandments side by side. You’ll find that not one provision of the Ten Commandments made it into our Constitution.
As for Jack’s question as to the English common law, it is a body of law based on the oral legal traditions of the barbarians, not on Christian law. Remember that there was a separate set of ecclesiastical courts and ecclesiastical laws in England. These were based on the church canon law of medieval Europe. They used code law rather than common law. This was a separate and completely different set of laws, courts, and lawyers from the common law courts, which were charged with less mundane work. Instead of deciding who would be excommunicated, the common law courts decided who really owned a cow or a farm. These ecclesiastical courts gradually were abandoned, leaving us with the joys of the common law.
The common law grew up independently of church law and is little influenced by the Ten Commandments, which have little to say about the meat of the common law: wills, trusts, property law, and torts. To suggest that the common law is based in any meaningful sense on the Ten Commandments is Christian wishful thinking.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Okay guys, if religion does not play a part in our government, then please explain what all the hoopla is about when the soon to be president is sworn in and why it matters what book or Bible he chooses to place his hand on?
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 am
Jack and Peach, the question was along the lines of what the basis of our laws is. That’s different from acknowledging that the Ten Commandments had the effect of religious law, as well as a statement of ethical principles, which influenced later civilizations. That’s the point, I suppose, of the Supreme Court frieze, which gives a nod to the lawgivers who have come before — Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Octavian, Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon. Of that group, the most relevant to what the Supreme Court actually does is John Marshall.
The question about the swearing in on the Bible is an example of how religion is not totally separated from our government, a subject on which Jose and I have had some back and forth. The “wall of separation” spoken of by Jefferson is not much of a wall in some instances — putting “In God We Trust” on our currency, hiring chaplains for Congress, swearing in ceremonies, etc. The “hoopla”, as Peach puts it, is because people care about what politicians, as individuals, believe. That’s why we’ve had a lot of posts and comments on subjects such as the religious beliefs of Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, etc. Enquiring minds want to know, even though a President could take the oath of office without putting his hand on any book.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Peach, a scholar named Martin Marty, at the University of Chicago, would answer your question about the role of religion in government like this. He suggests that in most traditional European kingdoms, the state and the church were essentially one. Even England still recognizes the Church of England as its “established” church, though it doesn’t support it financially anymore. One of the purposes of an established church is to give a religious veneer to the civil government. The monarchs of England are always crowned in Anglican cathedrals at ceremonies conducted by Anglican bishops and priests. Even Tony Blair didn’t renounce the Church of England for Catholicism until he was out of office. Marty suggests that our American society has developed its own “civil religion” to replace a state chartered religion.
Marty argues that people want to hear religious imagery at things like inaugurations and public meetings, but that religious imagery must be bland enough so that it is generally agreeable to everyone and generally not offensive to anyone. Therefore, we have developed bland but meaningless public prayers and bland and meaningless symbols like officeholders choosing to be sworn in with a Bible. This civil religion is not entirely Christian: for years, Jewish leaders have participated in civil ceremonies and given prayers at them. Now Moslems are starting to play as well.
Marty would argue that the real rule of decision in church-state cases is whether the conduct complained of violates our ideas of a civil religion. “In God We Trust?” Sure, we can handle that, although this is a relatively late addition to our money. Chaplain giving a bland prayer at an opening ceremony of a legislature? Sure, we can stand that, too. But anything substantive, anything which elevates the religious content of a ceremony to something beyond background noise, is beyond the pale.
The cases involving manger scenes demonstrate this. The courts have generally ruled that if you put enough plastic reindeer around the manger so that it effectively becomes background noise, it’s okay. Dittle the Ten Commandments. As I said above, it’s become a game between the people who want to abandon the idea of a civil religion and impose evangelical Christianity on the world, and those who don’t. Given that the taxpayers ultimately pay the price to play the game, I wish they’d move on to something else and cause trouble where the cost won’t fall on everyone else. I suspect that if these folks who think the world should be plastered with the Ten Commandments had to pay the cost of the litigation (which they know is coming when they put them up) themselves, they’d get a life and leave us alone.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
What can a person say that doesn’t bother someone? You can’t, if you aren’t a Christian, you aren’t going to like Christian things, on the other hand, if you are a Christian, you aren’t going to like things that oppose the Bible or Christ. Personally, it’s a bit silly trying to stop anybody from expressing their beliefs, if it gets to the point that we can’t exchange ideas or express ourself, than are we really any better than the former Soviets or Nazis? I say this with no joy, but America is beginning to become a country that caters to special interest groups, while ignoring the majority. Where is the common sense? Poo on all that educational guff, you can be book smart and still not have sense God gave a goose. Personally, if Hindu’s want a picture of a cow to worship, why not? That’s their belief, but don’t make us cater to their sensitivity either, this is supposed to be a free country. People need to deal with it and get over it. Live and let live!
April 5th, 2008 at 3:19 am
Mike, the Ten Commandments cases concern the extent to which a governmental entity can put up a religious display. They don’t limit people’s right to express themselves or put up displays at home, church, or their business. On this blog, for example, there are numerous examples of people insulting other religions. That’s protected by the First Amendment.
The establishment clause, by the way, not only protects against religion from intruding into the government, it also protects against the government from intruding into religion. You may like the idea of certain religious icons finding their way into government space, but you may not like the government coming into your church and dictating what’s displayed there. So I’d say that the establishment clause promotes freedom rather than suppressing it. That’s why it’s in the Bill of Rights, as in “our rights”, not the government’s rights.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Larry and Caleb: The laws of our country according to our history was founded on the Roman and Greek Laws. Which were at one time called Gentiles. Here in the U.S. all kinds of religions exists: and the worship of all kinds of Gods. If we were founded on that kind of problems, no wonder we are in trouble. But we can worship which ever God we want to: it is our rights.
Now concerning Muders, stealing, lying and committing adulter: that is Satan’s work. Yahweh did not end, or fullfil Satan. Satan is a Spirit also: Yahweh created Satan from himself Spirit. We all were created from Spirit Yahweh: but Satan oppose Yahweh. Once we know that Yahweh created us, and that same Spirit Yahweh dwells in us: Satan can’t fool us into doing his biding. I know this is a shock to some: it was a shock to me when I found out that I was carring Yahweh with me in my secret places.
the best way for you to know what I am talking about: read ‘Master Key The Final Decision’by me: you can find it on the internet. final word keep religion separated from State.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Bernice, while I agree with your final conclusion, that we need to keep religion separated from the state, I do quibble about our nation being based on either Roman or Greek laws or institutions.
As Larry aptly pointed out, our nation was founded on the Constitution and the common law of England. The Constitution is a made up document; that is, while it has similarities to many forms of government, it is so different from any government seen before that it has to be put in a category of its own. Virtually every part of it represents a compromise of some kind.
And the common law of England is based on the reports of the English common law judges, not on Roman law, or its modern equivalents. Our laws weren’t based on those of the Romans, they were based on those of the barbarians at the gates.
And after a thousand years of development of the common law, and two hundred twenty years of Constitutional scholarship, our highest court gets to decide cases about whether a student can hold up a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” sign. I love this country.