# Shove those commandments right up your burning bush you pandering ass! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 16, 2004, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072 "2004-12-16T01:36:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/61 "2004-12-16T19:25:49Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Take him out and shoot him. I’ll swear out the warrant later. Nah, don’t shoot him. String him up. We have the chord. ---
**Author:** ![Abbie\_Carmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@Abbie\_Carmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abbie_Carmichael)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/62 "2004-12-16T19:25:52Z")
_sigh_ What happened to the good ole’ days when judges only brought their vibrators to court and left their religion at home? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/63 "2004-12-16T19:28:13Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Care to elaborate, John? That is such a tease. > [@](#): > > Thomas Jefferson: “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.”–Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Miller, 1808 Well, I’m just going from the text of the constitution, which only talks about Congress enacting laws… The quote you offer, in fact, is an injunction against government interference with religioius institutions, not the that relgious thought or action should be banned from government. But the real point is that the quote, no matter what it says, is NOT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. Even if Jefferson could be quoted as saying "We must have complete seperation of church and state. " it would still be just a quote from one man. The wording of the constitution is what actually was agreed upon as law, not the quotations of any one man. > [@](#): > > The judge as a private citizen can have the Ten Commandments embroidered on all of his clothing. But when he dons that robe, he is no longer acting as a private citizen. He is acting in an official capacity as an arm of the government. People in his courtroom are there on government business – not for religious instruction. Let me be clear: I don’t think judges should have the 10 Cs on their robes. But this isn’t about what you or I think, but about what the constution actually says. I’d be interested in what our legal folks have to say about that. It’s just unclear to me how a judge wearing the 10 Cs can be construed as “Congress making a law”. I really, really, really wish the framers had been more explicit about the seperation of Church and state in the Constitution. But the fact is, they didin’t. And until we, as a nation, fix that with an amendment, we’re stuck wrestling with these issues. We are, after all, a nation of laws. We don’t get to declare something illegal just because we think it OUGHT to be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/64 "2004-12-16T19:47:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. I recognize a legitimate view back there amongst the penumbras and emanations. But to call for a strict adherence to the law when you want it, and then support the penumbras when you don’t… THAT doesn’t fly. So what emanations and penumbras protect ceremonial deism? Nothing in the text about it. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/65 "2004-12-16T19:49:30Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Nah, don’t shoot him. String him up. We have the chord. Wait. Save the bullet. Use it on this one. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/66 "2004-12-16T20:01:29Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > I’m with you brother. > > You reckon the rapture has happened and evil is running the show? Quick! Everybody look busy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/67 "2004-12-16T20:36:24Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > So what emanations and penumbras protect ceremonial deism? Nothing in the text about it. > > Enjoy, > Steven I agree that no emantions or penumbras protect ceremonial deism. But “ceremonial deism” does not represent an establishment of religion. It doesn’t offend the black-letter law of the Constitution. No penumbras need apply. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/68 "2004-12-16T20:45:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree that no emantions or penumbras protect ceremonial deism. > > But “ceremonial deism” does not represent an establishment of religion. It doesn’t offend the black-letter law of the Constitution. No penumbras need apply. What an utter tautology. Your saying that an endorsement isn’t an endorsement as long as it falls under the imaginary rubric of"Ceremonial Deism, " which is a completely synthetic and _and hoc_ construction contrived for the sole purpose of protecting Establishment violations. It’s a purely invented category with no textual support in the Constitution whatsoever. It DOES violate the letter of the law and “Ceremonial Deism” does not exist as a Constitutional exception. It’s a purely activist pronouncement of new law. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/69 "2004-12-16T21:03:24Z")
I thought it was the executive branch that was supposed to enforce the law. I thought the judicial branch was supposed to _interpret_ it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/70 "2004-12-16T21:05:17Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I thought it was the executive branch that was supposed to enforce the law. I thought the judicial branch was supposed to _interpret_ it. That’s correct but it’s also pedantic. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/71 "2004-12-16T21:08:43Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > That’s correct but it’s also pedantic. Surprise. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/72 "2004-12-16T21:17:07Z")
Query: Is the robe the official uniform of a judge or can he wear whatever he wants? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/73 "2004-12-16T21:19:57Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What an utter tautology. Your saying that an endorsement isn’t an endorsement as long as it falls under the imaginary rubric of"Ceremonial Deism, " which is a completely synthetic and _and hoc_ construction contrived for the sole purpose of protecting Establishment violations. It’s a purely invented category with no textual support in the Constitution whatsoever. It DOES violate the letter of the law and “Ceremonial Deism” does not exist as a Constitutional exception. It’s a purely activist pronouncement of new law. No. No, no, no. Also: no. A court performs its traditional function when it applies the law to a set of facts. The law forbids an establishment of religion. That’s black-letter law. Whether a particular practice constitutes an establishment of religion is a matter of law. For example, you might claim that the presence of a Bible in a public library constitutes an establishment of religion. It is for the courts to determine whether it does or not. “Ceremonial deism” is not an extension of the law. It is simply a description for the acts which the government performs that may refer to religion, but are in fact devoid of any religious significance. Forget “ceremonial deism.” It’s obviously confusing you. No one is claiming that “ceremonial deism” is part of the Constitution. Each case is decided based on a question of law: does the practice in question constitute “establishment?” Yes, or no. Very simple. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/74 "2004-12-16T21:26:22Z")
And if it _does_ constitute establishment we will call it “Ceremonial Deism” and leave it standing. It’s an imaginary loophole. It doesn’t just apply to _references_ to religion but to actual endorsements of deities and even expressions of faith. 'In God we trust" is an expression of faith. Calling it CE is just a way to quarrantine a virus instead of deleting it. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/75 "2004-12-16T21:36:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Each case is decided based on a question of law: does the practice in question constitute “establishment?” Yes, or no. Very simple. Establishment Clause jurisprudence is many things, but it is not “very simple”. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/76 "2004-12-16T21:40:07Z")
> [@Abbie Carmichael](#): > > _sigh_ > > What happened to the good ole’ days when judges only brought their vibrators to court and left their religion at home? If I remember correctly, it was not a vibrator, but a penis pump. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/77 "2004-12-16T21:47:54Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > That’s correct but it’s also pedantic. Why pedantic? Because it’s me, or because there actually is no difference in your view between enforcement and interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/78 "2004-12-16T22:08:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Why pedantic? Because it’s me, or because there actually is no difference in your view between enforcement and interpretation? No, not because it’s you. I’m not one of the people that ever does the eyeroll thing at you and I’ve never joined a jump-on-Lib dogpile. I said it was pedantic because there’s a difference between the informal manner in which I used the word “enforce” and the manner that its used to delineate the formal separation of powers. This isn’t a high school government class. My context was different. I only meant it in the sense of keeping order in a courtroom and ensuring that legal procedures are carried out. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/79 "2004-12-16T22:09:09Z")
> [@Chotii](#): > > Next we’ll be requiring everyone in public office to be a sworn atheist. Ooops…that’d be requiring a certain belief system, too. Just thought I’d pop in here and say \*\*atheism is not a belief system! \*\* Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/80 "2004-12-16T22:09:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Ceremonial deism” is not an extension of the law. It is simply a description for the acts which the government performs that may refer to religion, but are in fact devoid of any religious significance. Or it is a convenient legal middle ground invented out of whole cloth to dump cases which would otherwise be violations of the establishment clause. > [@Bricker](#): > > Forget “ceremonial deism.” It’s obviously confusing you. No one is claiming that “ceremonial deism” is part of the Constitution. Each case is decided based on a question of law: does the practice in question constitute “establishment?” Yes, or no. Very simple. Not at all. The invention of the doctrine of Ceremonial Deism has made it at least a three outcome choice. Not establishment, establishment but for the ceremonial aspect, or religious and offensive to the establishment clause. What the founders set up as a binary choice became a trinary choice because of the political realities associated with following a strict SOCAS doctrine. So to keep the deists happy the deism is included and a legal status of “ceremonial deism”, which has no constitutional support, is invented to contain those acts which would otherwise offend the establishment clause. Enjoy, Steven [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072.md?page=5)