Questions for anti-10 Commandments display folks

[FishEater]

The logic of the plaintiff of the “10 Commandments Case” perplexes me. A monument on federal grounds listing the 10 Commandments, placed there by private citizens, amounts to government endorsement of religion, which is forbidden by the First Amendment. So they say.

What if a person stood on a public sidewalk, or even on the same grounds where the monument now stands, and held a sign listing the 10 Commandments (or a portrait of Jesus, nativity scene, etc.). My question to the ACLU types, and to the Supreme Court judges that will side with them, is… would this be considered government endorsement of religion and therefore an illegal activity? Using your logic, it seems to me it would…

Then how about a person wearing a tee-shirt displaying the 10 Commandments… would he/she be barred from stepping on any public ground, under the pretext that it would constitute government endorsement of religion? Please explain.

Thank you.

 

[katherine2]

FishEater:

The logic of the plaintiff of the “10 Commandments Case” perplexes me. A monument on federal grounds listing the 10 Commandments, placed there by private citizens, amounts to government endorsement of religion, which is forbidden by the First Amendment. So they say.

What if a person stood on a public sidewalk, or even on the same grounds where the monument now stands, and held a sign listing the 10 Commandments (or a portrait of Jesus, nativity scene, etc.). My question to the ACLU types, and to the Supreme Court judges that will side with them, is… would this be considered government endorsement of religion and therefore an illegal activity? Using your logic, it seems to me it would…

Then how about a person wearing a tee-shirt displaying the 10 Commandments… would he/she be barred from stepping on any public ground, under the pretext that it would constitute government endorsement of religion? Please explain.

Thank you.

I’m afraid, dear, that you won’t find many ACLU types here to answer your questions, myself included. While I hope the Court rules against the ACLU in this case, I do think there is an abvious difference int he situations you mention. A T-shirt or sign would to a reasonable man be seen as a statement by the sign holder or T-shirt wearer, not the state, even if it is a T-shirt clad person in the DMV line. The question the Court has to deal with is the claim that the momument is a statement by the state, not a private citizen who happens to be on public property at a given momement.

Nevertheless, I hope the court rules against the ACLU for other reasons.

 

[watertower]

I think it is even simpler than that. Yes the T-shirt takes up space temporarily. A permanent structure occupies property paid for by all citizens. Something like my putting an add for my pizza place on public property and not paying for that space. Now if they wanted to pay rent or actually purchase that space, that would be different. So why don’t they just buy their own piece of land and put it there?

 

[FishEater]

watertower:

I think it is even simpler than that. Yes the T-shirt takes up space temporarily. A permanent structure occupies property paid for by all citizens. Something like my putting an add for my pizza place on public property and not paying for that space. Now if they wanted to pay rent or actually purchase that space, that would be different. So why don’t they just buy their own piece of land and put it there?

I see. Public property, when someone stands on it with a 10-Commandments sign, is not property paid for by all citizens. But when it’s a monument, it IS property paid for by all citizens. Also, public expression of the 10 Commandments, according to the Constitution (I’ll take your word for it, it’s in there somewhere), is the same as advertizing for a pizza business.

Thanks for the clarification.