Scylla, whaddya mean “nothing good is going to happen”? The people who are sponsoring a government endorsement of religion are going to be informed that it’s unconstitutional, and so will everybody who’s watching the case. The fundamental principle of separation of church and state will be upheld, and everybody will have been forced to think about these issues more carefully. I think that’s a very good thing. It’s a pity that it’s going to cost the Adams County school district and their supporters so much money and emotional energy to learn that lesson, but apparently nothing less will do it.
**
It is, I should think, directly applicable. The Ten Commandments are, the ACTM proclamations notwithstanding, first and foremost, Bible verses. Reading them aloud, is a public proclamation. In the above case, the school allowed the students to “…absent himself from the classroom or, should he elect to remain, not participate in the exercises.” Even though the ceremony was “voluntary” the court held that it was unconstitutional. I chose that case because it was the one which you mentioned.
If that is insufficent, the original case cited STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) is directly on point. In this case the Court held, in the first sentence of the decision that: A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In the decision the Court cited the precedent established by Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 .
It is directly applicable.
Even if I did stipulate, for the purposes of this discussion, that your analogy of the analogy held, the police would still not be responsible for the plane going up in flames. Although it certainly could have been handled better in your example, the only responsible party is the one who burned the plane. An incitement to riot is never an excuse to riot.
Mr. Baker’s attempt to have the Phallic Worship display added to the Ten Commandments, while somewhat eccentric, does not constitute ‘a smug and self-righteous attack’ on anyone, much less the ‘fundies’. It did, however, perfectly illustrate the utter ridiculousness of their position. It is not the fault of either Mr. Baker or the ACLU that the school board is not able to see the inherent error of allowing one religious display and not the other.
How so? You might hope, even prefer, that someone who is right would also be judicious and thoughtful. But I fail to see how that is “required”. Larry Flynt, for example, is neither, but was still fully justified in taking his case to the Supreme Court and winning.
Perhaps every other avenue of approach had failed. I do not pretend to know the complete history of what occured, but it seems likely that an attempt to include the “Phallic Worship” display was not the opening shot. If there had been attempts by Mr. Baker and others of like mind to prevent this situation, would you be more inclined to support the case?
And, once again, I must point out that while you feel that the responsibility apparently lays with the complaintants, I, and possibly many others in this thread, believe that the responsibility belongs to the School Board. Calling up the image of the children who will be injured in this battle does not automatically mean that there is ‘enough guilt to go around’. In my view, the School Board, both wholly and individually, can encompass all that guilt and more.
Mr. Baker will win and therefore, by extension, so will everyone else. Not least of which are those who are now trying to retain this display.
For me? Yes. You should ask the School Board and the various ministers afterwards to find out their opinion, I’m not sure that we would be in agreement.
Hopefully, I’m not the only one who finds this to be an unacceptable alternative. Agnostic insensitive deviant reprobate though I am, the Commandments are sacred to hundreds of millions of people and deserve much better treatment.
In an attempt to break my recent string of novella length posts, I’m going to snip the last part of the post because I feel I’ve addressed the issue in the above response. If you feel that there’s something key that I’ve missed, please bring it to my attention and we’ll go over it again.
The crux of your argument, and the point you’ve made (and seen refuted) over and over again is that the damage you anticipate to the community and to the students of Adams County doesn’t seem (to you) to be outweighed by the principle involved.
Kimstu already pointed out the benefit being sought here. The reason why I think the fight is a good one is equally simple: any endorsement of a particular religion by a government immediately makes all the citizens under that government who do not subscribe to the endorsed religion “less equal” than those who do. And the more passionately those who wish to establish such an endorsement fight for it, the more passionately should those who desire egality and freedom fight against it.
Ankh_Too:
You said:
“If you feel that there’s something key that I’ve missed, please bring it to my attention and we’ll go over it again.”
No, I feel that was a rather thorough and well-conducted ass-kicking.
I will quibble on one or two things: I don’t share your confidence in the ACLU’s ability to win this case.
The school is being sued. They are going to use school funds to fight this lawsuit. Why is that a surprise? Apparently they have lawyers who think they have a case. In today’s environment I can see them arguing that the 10 commandments are not a prayer in this case, but a graven monument, and therefore get the same exemption that “In God We Trust” enjoys. They can argue that they are the foundation of Western law, and in the right courtroom they might pull it off.
I think it’s stupid to defend. But, they are going to. It’s their fault for doing so, but if the ACLU also chooses to participate than they share reponsibility for the repercussions.
You call the Phallic worship “Eccentric.” It’s not. It’s a deliberate insult, and a base challenge. It does not proceed towards a resolution. Doing things in this manner is an execise in very bad judgement.
Yes, I might feel differently about this if it didn’t seem like such an insensitive and pointless attack.
I can understand how “Thou shalt not murder” and “Thou shalt not steal” could be considered historical bases for our modern laws, but “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” and “Remeber the Sabbath to keep it holy”? I can’t see the civic argument wroking well in those cases.
Xenophon:
“The reason why I think the fight is a good one is equally simple: any endorsement of a particular religion by a government immediately makes all the citizens under that government who do not subscribe to the endorsed religion “less equal” than those who do.”
It seems to me that you are assigning motivations that may not in fact exist.
You’re technically correct, and if you feel it’s worth the price, than I guess you have the right to pursue it. That’s not my point.
I’m saying it may not be morally correct to feel too self congraulatory about these things. Is the ACLU fighting for justice, or are they helping people? Could these goals have been accomplished more constuctively and less confrontationally? Are we sure that we’ve done everything we could to avoid these extreme circumstances? Did we contribute to bringing it this point? Before we continue, is there any way to salvage the situation?
If the decision is that this must be pursued to the bitter end, then I think we must regard it as a failure no matter he outcome.
I’m perfecly clear on your standpoints.
Well, Scylla, you may be reassured to know that the Adams County Ministerial Association is more sanguine than you are about the prospect of undertaking this legal battle and its consequences:
They also disclaim any wish to turn this into a religious war:
And they don’t accuse their opponents of bad faith either:
So it sounds as though what we’ve got here is a genuine disagreement of principle concerning the constitutionality of certain venues of religious expression. That’s exactly the sort of disagreement that constitutional law was designed to settle. Why are you mourning and wringing your hands over the use of the courts to do what they’re designed to do? If the ACMA and the ACLU were gunning down one another’s supporters in drive-by shootings, I could see the argument for sacrificing principle for the sake of peace. But if the fight is a civil lawsuit in every sense of the word, I don’t see what’s wrong with both parties sticking to their principles and continuing the case to its resolution.
Personally, I think it’s very clear that the ACMA’s in the wrong legally, and I agree that, as the OP says, it’s a pity for them to spend so much money defending an indefensible position. But if they feel their principles demand it, and they recognize their responsibility to keep hostilities on a legal rather than a personal level, I’m going to treat them like a worthy opponent and give them the battle they’re asking for. I don’t see why having a well-fought legal fight about fundamental issues of justice and freedom, even if it costs money, has to be regarded as a “failure” and a source of “guilt”.
It may sound strange to hear this coming from someone who’s thrown around a couple of terms like “pigheaded” and “irresponsible” about the defendants in this case, but I hope I don’t need to explain that I wouldn’t be talking that way to an Adams County minister. I may not have a lot of respect for their understanding of the principle of SOCAS or their knowledge of constitutional law, but I do genuinely respect their wish to stand by their principles and their right to defend their case in court. Unlike you, I think that the best way of showing that respect is not to say “poor well-meaning creatures, they don’t really understand the issues here” and let it go, but to tell them firmly and courteously that what they are doing is illegal and wrong and I challenge them to make their case good in law.
Once again, I direct your attention to STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980). In particular, I recomment that you re-read the first sentence, already quoted in my previous post. Again, it says "A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." It is no stretch to go from posting small copies on the walls of the classroom to a large copy outdoors. Furthermore, the court found the following:
There is no substantive difference between the two cases that I am able to detect. The points raised in the reversal (6-3, btw) are relevant here and with which the Court had already dealt. I am at a loss to see how this case could you could feel that this case has any chance of winning. TI’s extraordinarily doubtful that they could get an affirmative judgement from the Federal Court. And even if they do, the case will be appealed, and sent up the line. Eventually, relief will be granted to the plaintiff.
I had hoped someone else might bring this up, but I guess I’ll do it. Our concern that the students may suffer financial hardship is without merit, and thus your line of reasoning about the repercussions in this case is faulty. The financial distress that you worry about is actually negligible. In the newspaper article cited by black455, it says clearly: Fahling, a lawyer with the American Family Association’s Center for Law and Policy in Tupelo, Miss. Association officials have told the school board they will defend the case for free. (emphasis added)
Given that the citizens have been relieved of the burden of the expenses generated by this case, there seems to be little reason for you not to support it, since you have agreed in previous posts that the display is patently unconstitutional. For me, the expense of the case was, and is irrelevant.
As an aside, since the [url="http://www.afa.com"American Family Association, headed by the Rev. Donald Wildmon, is an evangelical activist association with a long history, not least of which was calling for a boycott on Walt Disney, Inc. because of their ‘blatant attack on American families’. They are well funded and well organized. And no, the school board should not be crucified because of the company they keep. But if they wanted to give the impression that this is a non-religious issue, they would have been better served to find representation from someone of a slightly less frightening ilk.
On this issue I think we will continue to disagree. If ind it to be an appropriate response. After all, it cannot be any more offensive to the rest of the people in Adams County than the Ten Commandments was to him.
I have to admit, I am not at all concered with the sensitivity of the citizens of Adams County. To me, this is not a reason not to pursue this case. No matter what, someone is always going to be offended by telling them that they may not force their beliefs on the general public. There is no way to avoid it. I could understand, although not agree with, the concern that the students would be harmed through the pursuit of this case. Since that worry has been removed, I see absolutely no reason not to pursue the case to its inevitable conclusion.
It is precisely when the separation of church and state becomes blurred that such horrors as the Inquisition become possible. The slippery slope of such potentialities must be avoided at all costs. It is why the Constitution is so incontrovertible on this point.
[Foghorn Leghorn]
“Any of this, I say, any of this penetratin’ that thick skull of your’s boy?”
[/Foghorn Leghorn]
Kimstu:
I certainly can’t argue against such a reaonable perspective as you’ve demonstrated.
I certainly hope things go as indicated, though I do take that assurance with a grain of salt. In the first sentence is the indication that no students will be affected by this, but the next sentence seems to say that it’s ok if they suffer for freedom. It is a little disturbing to hear a Minister telling me what public school policy is going to be, and how it will be implemented.
This is a very strange case. Again, if the U.S. House of Representatives is any indication it’s going to be a tough battle.
The odd thing is that I’m not really sure how I feel about this. On the one hand the 10 Cs were surely erected for almost purely religious reasons. On the other hand, they do have historical value, IMHO.
Ankh_Too:
I still see a substantive difference between the two cases. The first is in response to a requirement to post the 10 Commandments in classrooms.
This case is about whether they may choose to do so on their own. I think that’s significantly different, but I’m not a lawyer.
If indeed there is no cost to the students, I have no objection to the pursuit of this case.
Scylla: You call the Phallic worship “Eccentric.” It’s not. It’s a deliberate insult, and a base challenge.
Just wanted to make a comment on this peripheral issue. I find it interesting that you (and the ACMA defendants, btw) consider this particular challenge “offensive” and “insulting” and “base”. I could see someone’s objecting to it on the grounds that Mr. Baker isn’t really a follower of such a faith and that therefore his request to have its symbol placed beside the Ten Commandments is frivolous, but that doesn’t seem to be the complaint people are making: what seems to be “base” and “offensive” is the suggestion that a representation of an erect penis should be placed beside the tablets showing the Ten Commandments.
Excuse me. The representation of the phallus as a symbol for religious veneration is an ancient and well-established tradition in religious iconography. [Had to rewrite that sentence a few times to eliminate phrases like “long tradition” or “firmly established”. :)] Lingayat Shaivite Hindus carry and wear “Shiva-linga” phalluses as Christians do crucifixes, and all Shaivites venerate (generally much less representational, but sometimes very anatomically faithful) linga statues. Phallus-statues are not automatically obscene or vulgar in what they symbolize: on the contrary, they are generally extremely holy objects regarded with great respect as symbolizing divine power and beneficence. It is not some kind of defilement (except maybe on sectarian grounds of idolatry, not obscenity) to put one next to a Judeo-Christian symbol.
I bring this up just to point out that if the people who resented this suggestion as “base” or “insulting” were really as “inclusive” and “respectful” toward other faiths as they claim to be, they would know enough to realize that a phallus-statue is a genuine religious symbol and not some kind of obscene insult. Their reaction is just another example of the extent to which the Judeo-Christian tradition is so dominant in this society that most people mistake it for some kind of secular norm, and assume that its particular religious prohibitions (e.g., no erect penises allowed in religious iconographic contexts) apply everywhere in the society. That sneaky religious bias is, I bet, what Mr. Baker was trying to point out.
Scylla: *I certainly can’t argue against such a reaonable perspective as you’ve demonstrated. *
Aw shoot, I guess that means I have to get back to work, then. 
Thanks for playing!
I suppose it’s possible, but I still say Mr. Baker was being a prick. 
Being a little hard on him, aren’t you Scylla?
Come on, xeno, don’t go off half-cocked.
I hesitate to jump back in after so much has gone on since last night, but I would like to ask Scylla if he’s changed his mind yet.
Scylla: You seem to acknowledge that the ACLU is in the right, the Board is in the wrong, the action is unConstitutional. Right?
But then you swerve off from the rest of us by saying that even though it’s unConstitutional, an organization dedicated to preserving Constitutional rights should ignore it and those affected by it because you think it can only come to harm.
Is this correct?
If so, I really have to say that I don’t understand your position. Not one tiny bit. It seems ludicrous to me, frankly.
The test for the Establishment Clause is set forth in LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) and consists of three parts: * governmental practice must (1) reflect a clearly secular purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.*
In STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) the court held that the Kentucky statue violated the first part of the test. As such, even if the display of the Ten Commandments is limited to a single school district, it certainly implies that it will continue to violate the same section of the test. The inclusion of other documents for ‘historical context’ does not change the nature of the display any more than the inclusion of a disclaimer that read*"[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," *
In the second place, the display of the Ten Commandments in the millieu of a series of other, secular documents does, by its inherent nature advances religion. Not, as they may claim, religions in general, but two specific religions to the exclusion of all others. By their very attempt to stretch the Ten Commandments out to cover all people, they diminish the closely held religious beliefs held by billions of people, reducing them to nothing more than myth and legends.
Could you say why you feel that it’s not a near certainty that the case will be affirmed? Throughout the thread you’ve mentioned several times that you felt the display was unconstitutional. What changed your mind?
DavidB:
Reading the first set of posts in this thread made me uneasy. I thought that perhaps some unfair assumptions were being made.
I still have a hard time distinguishing the differences between the 10 Commandments, “In God We Trust,” The Pledge of Allegiance, etc. etc. These things too, don’t seem strictly Constitutional from the standpoint of the SOCAS. Yet, they slip buy under a kind of “They’ve been used for so long, stop complaining” kind of ruling.
Though blatantly transparent, the additional $50,000 of context money may serve to legally recategorize the 10 Commandments enough to squeak by in the right environment (Remember, the US House of Representatives voted for this. Public Opinion IS Powerful,)for the same reasons. In that example it may pass the test. Ankh_Too turned me on to that idea.
Legally, and morally I think they should come down. The issue itself seems frankly trivial. The Constitution is a big gun. You don’t shoot it at squirrels. I would like to think that perhaps these energies and funds could be used to benefit the students rather than fight out this esoteric bullshit.
My stance is that a conflict like this shows what’s wrong with both sides.
Scylla said:
You’re not quite right about that. Yes, I do agree that they are violations of SOCAS. But it’s not a case of people having simply decided that it’s been so long that it’s not worth it. It’s because there have been high court rulings upholding the status quo. You can’t just keep suing over the same thing, time and time again, after the Supreme Court has ruled on it. You will lose.
That said, there are people who occasionally challenge even those things. Another case challenging the legality of an official Christmas holiday for government employees is in appeals right now (it was shot down by a low court just before Christmas last year). A case about using “In God We Trust” in schools has been filed or will be filed soon (I think the state school board of Colorado is encouraging its schools to use that motto, if I recall correctly).
The House is full of idiots. I’m sorry, but it’s true. They care about politics, not what is right. That’s why the Supreme Court justices are appointed – so they don’t have to worry about being re-elected. Just because the House says something doesn’t make it relevant at all to what the courts will decide.
Then isn’t that what you should be arguing? I mean, do you make it a habit to argue against your own positions?
Some of us don’t consider religious oppression to be a minor issue.
You’re right. It should. Blame that on the school board, not those of us who would like to see the Constitution upheld. You seem to be casting blame on the wrong side here.
To me, what you have been saying is similar to a situation in which an accused criminal puts on a high-powered defense. Okay, maybe he was “only” accused of burglary, not murder or something major, but he still broke the law. If he hires millions of dollars worth of attorneys, should the state just give up and walk away? Or should they prosecute because, well, he broke the law?
Except that I have yet to see you show what is wrong with the side who wants to uphold the Constitution…