# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/81 "2004-12-16T22:28:39Z")
> [@danceswithcats](#): > > 700 Club and many other programs are on TV and radio which I find offensive, so I don’t watch or listen to them. Someone with an ass the size of Baltimore in lavender stretch pants is offensive to me, so I don’t look. > > Change the channel, shut it off, avert your gaze-it’s all the same. I don’t give a fat rat’s ass if a judge wears the 10 commandments or the lyrics to the Hokey Pokey on his robes. > > Choose your battles, kids. How exactly does someone compelled by full force and power of law to appear before this judge “change the channel”? File a motion to recuse? Denied. Appeal it? Denied. Appeal it again? Denied, and as if being before this fuck isn’t bad enough now he’s pissed off at you. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/82 "2004-12-16T23:26:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Each case is decided based on a question of law: does the practice in question constitute “establishment?” Yes, or no. Very simple. So, how is having a representative of the government, acting in as an official representative of government, wearing one particular religion’s laws prominently on the garment that designates him as the official representative of the government not a de facto establishment of religion? How is having a country’s currency espousing religious belief not a de facto establishment of religion? Ceremonial deism is no more than a legal fiction invented to get around the establishment clause. Your defense of it shows you only adhere to “strict construction” when it suits your purposes. ---
**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 17, 2004, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/83 "2004-12-17T01:34:44Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > So, how is having a representative of the government, acting in as an official representative of government, wearing one particular religion’s laws prominently on the garment that designates him as the official representative of the government not a de facto establishment of religion? In a strict interpretation of the constitution, you have a left out a key part: “Congress shall make no law…” This clearly forbids Congress from enacting a law \*\*requiring \*\*all judges to wear the 10 Cs on their robes. Does it, though, forbid the judicial branch members from expressing their religious beliefs on their robes? That, I think, is debateable. > [@](#): > > How is having a country’s currency espousing religious belief not a de facto establishment of religion? I’m more or less with you on this one, although the argument goes that “God” is generic. I don’t buy that. For one, if it were generic, it would be “god” not “God”. And I assume it is Congress which decides what is on our currency. At any rate, we all know what is meant by “God”-- the Christian God (with the Jewish and/or Muslim God thrown in after that fact). ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/84 "2004-12-17T01:48:23Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > In a strict interpretation of the constitution, you have a left out a key part: “Congress shall make no law…” This clearly forbids Congress from enacting a law \*\*requiring \*\*all judges to wear the 10 Cs on their robes. Does it, though, forbid the judicial branch members from expressing their religious beliefs on their robes? That, I think, is debateable. Under that logic, though, an executive order forcing every person in the federal government to wear a crucifix is permissable, because it’s not Congress making the law. But then again, under the strict constructionist approach, any law which restricts freedom of speech is unconstitutional. There’s no mention of “clear and present danger” and whatnot. But I’ve never heard a strict constructionist argue that the first amendment protects one’s right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater - although, that is the plain meaning of the amendment. Obviously, everyone accepts a bit of common sense interpretation. I think the common sense interpretation of the establishment clause is that if Congress can’t officially favor one religion over another, the other branches of government (and by extension) can’t either. Of course, a balance must be struck between personal, preferably discreet, religious observances. A yamukah or a sikh turban, for instance. Or a reasonably sized crucifix pendant or something. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/85 "2004-12-17T01:48:55Z")
> [@trandallt](#): > > Just thought I’d pop in here and say \*\*atheism is not a belief system! \*\* > > Carry on. For the record, **Chotii** ’s post did not make the claim that it is. > [@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. To demand that an individual maintain a belief system that is atheistic is not the same as declaring that atheism is a belief system. Granted, **Chotii** ’s post _was_ bizarre and OTT on its face. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/86 "2004-12-17T02:01:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But you’re OK with loopholes like penumbras and emanations that include the right to privacy, the right to abortion, the right to same-sex marriage, and the right to consensual sodomy, also “whole cloth” in their source. > > Spare me. The right to privacy is not specifically granted in the constitution. Then again, nor is the right to vote. Don’t see the textualists arguing often that elections can be suspended, just as long as it isn’t done on the basis of, for example, race. ---
**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 17, 2004, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/87 "2004-12-17T02:24:09Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Under that logic, though, an executive order forcing every person in the federal government to wear a crucifix is permissable, because it’s not Congress making the law. Does the constituion allow executive orders? I don’t think the founders ever envisioned the president having the powers he has today. But the wording of the establishment clause lends itself more towards an interpretation of keeping government out of religion, not expunging religion from government. I think it’s hard for Americans to imagine the concept of a state sponsored religion, although it was the rule of the day in the 18th century. We sure could use some updating of the first amendment in light of modern sensibilities about religion. Fat chance that’ll happen anytime soon, though. > [@](#): > > But then again, under the strict constructionist approach, any law which restricts freedom of speech is unconstitutional. There’s no mention of “clear and present danger” and whatnot. But I’ve never heard a strict constructionist argue that the first amendment protects one’s right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater - although, that is the plain meaning of the amendment. I see this more along the lines of libel laws. You don’t have the right to libel another individual. > [@](#): > > Obviously, everyone accepts a bit of common sense interpretation. I think the common sense interpretation of the establishment clause is that if Congress can’t officially favor one religion over another, the other branches of government (and by extension) can’t either. > > Of course, a balance must be struck between personal, preferably discreet, religious observances. A yamukah or a sikh turban, for instance. Or a reasonably sized crucifix pendant or something. The problem is that we never resolve these issues-- or at least we never resolve many of them. How many times to do we have to go round and round about who can wear what, who can say what, and who can display what. I find the whole provess much too subjective, and would prefer that we had a stricter constitutional prohibition against mixing religion and government. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/88 "2004-12-17T02:27:07Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] For the record, **Chotii** ’s post did not make the claim that it is.To demand that an individual maintain a belief system that is atheistic is not the same as declaring that atheism is a belief system. Granted, **Chotii** ’s post _was_ bizarre and OTT on its face.[/QUOT I’m not so sure. “Requiring everyone in public office to be a sworn atheist” says two things about them; that they are in public ofice and that they swear to be atheists. How do you read it to mean that “they maintain a belief system that is atheistic”? And what would be an example of such a system? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/89 "2004-12-17T02:27:33Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I see this more along the lines of libel laws. You don’t have the right to libel another individual. I think the argument is that a textualist reading of the First Amendment would disqualify such laws. Unless of course a textual reading won’t provide all the answers all of the time, that is. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/90 "2004-12-17T18:34:33Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Since when is a judge supposed to decide what’s “right and wrong?” I thought they were supposed to enforce the law. Roe v Wade? ---
**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 17, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/91 "2004-12-17T19:11:24Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > Roe v Wade? Um…no…Roe was decided on 9th Amendment and privacy grounds, not “right and wrong.” ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/92 "2004-12-17T19:37:19Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Um…no…Roe was decided on 9th Amendment and privacy grounds, not “right and wrong.” Distinction without a difference (and a somewhat inaccurate summary of _Roe_ to boot). Unless, of course, you’d like to direct me to that portion of the 9th amendment that clearly addresses either abortion or a generalized right to privacy. And when you’re done, share your thoughts on _Griswold v. Connecticut_. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/93 "2004-12-17T19:45:17Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > And when you’re done, share your thoughts on _Griswold v. Connecticut_. Oh, oh! I know this one. Something to do with a vacation, I believe. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/94 "2004-12-17T20:07:45Z")
> [@villa](#): > > The right to privacy is not specifically granted in the constitution. Then again, nor is the right to vote. Don’t see the textualists arguing often that elections can be suspended, just as long as it isn’t done on the basis of, for example, race. Bah. The right to vote is “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.” Therefore, it is a fundamental right, and strict scrutiny would apply to abridgement. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/95 "2004-12-17T21:03:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bah. The right to vote is “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.” Therefore, it is a fundamental right, and strict scrutiny would apply to abridgement. Hell, the constitution guarantees that the states will have a “republican form of government” f’rcryinoutloud. I’m pretty sure that’s a solid barrier against suspending elections. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/96 "2004-12-17T21:46:10Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Hell, the constitution guarantees that the states will have a “republican form of government” f’rcryinoutloud. I’m pretty sure that’s a solid barrier against suspending elections. True 'dat. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/97 "2004-12-17T21:47:31Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Hell, the constitution guarantees that the states will have a “republican form of government” f’rcryinoutloud. I’m pretty sure that’s a solid barrier against suspending elections. That creates an opening for an interesting hypothetical. Suppose next year, we put a referendum on the ballot, calling for a complete rewrite of the California Constitution. Let’s say it passes 99% to 1%. Let’s say that the new constitution calls for immediate elevation of Arnold Schwartzenegger as emperor of California, with the law-making body to be appointed directly by him. And let’s say that the constitution is ratified by public referendum by a margin of 99% to 1%. Don’t go telling me this could never happen. We Californians are idiots, and you can generally sell us any bill of goods you care to package, as long as you market it properly. Would California get kicked out of the Union? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/98 "2004-12-17T22:07:11Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > That creates an opening for an interesting hypothetical. Suppose next year, we put a referendum on the ballot, calling for a complete rewrite of the California Constitution. Let’s say it passes 99% to 1%. Let’s say that the new constitution calls for immediate elevation of Arnold Schwartzenegger as emperor of California, with the law-making body to be appointed directly by him. And let’s say that the constitution is ratified by public referendum by a margin of 99% to 1%. > > Don’t go telling me this could never happen. We Californians are idiots, and you can generally sell us any bill of goods you care to package, as long as you market it properly. > > Would California get kicked out of the Union? No. But the US Supreme Court would presumably invalidate those portions of the new Constitution that were inconsistent with a republican form of government. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/99 "2004-12-17T22:45:23Z")
Yeah, I kinda figured that would be the way it’d pan out. So how _does_ a state change its mind about admission into the Union? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072/100 "2004-12-18T00:55:29Z")
Eh, all you have to do is get the unanimous consent of the other 49 states and you’re golden. The civil war proved that you can’t secede if the other states don’t want you to secede. But what if they’re generally happy to get rid of you all? If no one objects, who is going to stop you? And it presumably wouldn’t take unanimous consent. A constitutional amendment declaring that California is no longer a state would do nicely. That just requires passage by the house, passage by the Senate, and ratification by 3/4s of the state houses. No one could object then. But even more minimally, if the president and the rump congress couldn’t agree to take any action, you’d be de facto independent. If there’s no will to bring you back into the union by force, then you have a fait accompli. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-those-commandments-right-up-your-burning-bush-you-pandering-ass/280072.md?page=6)