Supreme Court: Ten Commandments

[trumptman]

Pick a tiger by his toe (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050627/D8B02ET00.html)

Today the Supreme Court released two decisions regarding the ten commandments. If you can figure out exactly how they draw the fuzzy line between historical and endorsement...good luck.

Both were 5-4 decisions and it is likely both matters will come before the court again in the future with different cases.

Since the concept of human rights and even the concept of a nation/states arose in part because of religion, how is this even going to resolve itself?

Nick

[Powerdoc]

The supreme court, said, concerning the ten commandements display it's all a matter of moderation. The case per case basis should be the rule.

It's good to see, that the judges, told us that the law is not here to decide what we should do on every subject.

[BRussell]

I don't really get the combination of these two cases. Note that it was Stephen Breyer - the (relatively) liberal Clinton appointee - that made the difference. The article says O'COnnor was the swing vote, but that's not right - she was against the display in both cases. All the justices had the same position on both 10 Commandments cases, except Breyer, who switched. And I really can't see why he thought it was OK in one but not the other. :err:

[groverat]

The line isn't so fuzzy when the ten commandments is just one part of a larger piece filled with many other religious symbols from other times (Athena talking to the framers, for instance).

There is a massive difference between that and a display that consists solely of the ten commandments.

I don't think either should be there, but it's not like it's tough to see. If any single religious viewpoint takes center stage in a piece of art, it should not be connected in any way to a court of law. If it's just a mish-mash of many different things then the "WORSHIP JESUS OR GO TO PRISON/HELL" message is diluted enough to make it palatable to some.

[Moe_in_Texas]

A very fine line and one that will be hard to see in future cases.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by groverat
The line isn't so fuzzy when the ten commandments is just one part of a larger piece filled with many other religious symbols from other times (Athena talking to the framers, for instance). In these two cases, both were in the presence of other monuments. Actually, in the display that was ruled OK, it was much further from other monuments than the one ruled not OK.

The main reason Breyer cites for making the one OK is that it had been around for 40 years. The determinative factor here, however, is that 40 years passed in which the monument's presence, legally speaking, went unchallenged (until the single legal objection raised by petitioner). Those 40 years suggest more strongly than can any set of formulaic tests that few individuals, whatever their belief systems, are likely to have understood the monument as amounting, in any significantly detrimental way, to a government effort to establish religion. I'm sorry, but that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[Aurora]

Another 5-4 which means no one knows whats up. You cant on the backlawn but you can on the front lawn??? Another will just have to change the court to get the ruling we want next time decision. These guys cant agree on nothing nor can the two parties who put them there.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
In these two cases, both were in the presence of other monuments. Actually, in the display that was ruled OK, it was much further from other monuments than the one ruled not OK.

The main reason Breyer cites for making the one OK is that it had been around for 40 years. I'm sorry, but that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Agreed. It is also dumb in that is supposes a time limit instead of an actual type of test that would allow one to determine if some action is a religious endorsement.

BRussell, you seem to be finding some links that have better information than the AP links I have seen. Would you mind posting them?

Nick

[Moe_in_Texas]

I think that Christians have to realize that the US has changed since the 1700s. Most Americans were Christians at the time our nation was founded so the Bible and the Ten Commandments were universal and offended noone (or few). Freedom of religion was to protect one group of Christians from another. I don't think that they were faced with (or cared about) non-Christians. Today we are faced with a much more complex mixture of faiths and need to look at things differently.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Agreed. It is also dumb in that is supposes a time limit instead of an actual type of test that would allow one to determine if some action is a religious endorsement.

BRussell, you seem to be finding some links that have better information than the AP links I have seen. Would you mind posting them?

Nick There's scrotumblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/) (oops that was a typo), and here are the decisions: the Kentucky one (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1693) that had bad commandments and the Texas one (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1500) that had good commandments.

Apparently there's another one coming tomorrow with the 10 commandments in schools.

[pyr3]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
I think that Christians have to realize that the US has changed since the 1700s. Most Americans were Christians at the time our nation was founded so the Bible and the Ten Commandments were universal and offended noone (or few). Freedom of religion was to protect one group of Christians from another. I don't think that they were faced with (or cared about) non-Christians. Today we are faced with a much more complex mixture of faiths and need to look at things differently.

The Ten Commandments are from the Old Testament or Torah, so it's part of Jewish faith as well. If I remember correctly, Muslims believe in some of the Old Testament/Torah stuff as well. Those are basically the 3 major religions right there.

In all honesty, I think that the people that raise the most stink about issues like this are the sort of people that just want attention. Like the people that sue the government over the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools being offensive, even though their kid doesn't care or feel offended by it. I agree with separation of church and state, but I think that a lot of these cases are people that are nitpicking the system for monitory gain and the lawyers that take the case for fame and fortune.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
I think that Christians have to realize that the US has changed since the 1700s. Most Americans were Christians at the time our nation was founded so the Bible and the Ten Commandments were universal and offended noone (or few). Freedom of religion was to protect one group of Christians from another. I don't think that they were faced with (or cared about) non-Christians. Today we are faced with a much more complex mixture of faiths and need to look at things differently. I think that's true. But there was also a great deal of "free thinking" at the time. It was the Enlightenment, in which humanism and rationality were emphasized over old-fashioned religion.

Thomas Jefferson was a Christian, but he also rejected the supernatural aspects of Christianity, going so far as to make an edited Bible that deleted references to the virgin birth, the resurrection, and all that nonsense. :) (You can still buy it (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807077143/qid=1119913131/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8021482-4098458?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).)

Can you imagine a politician today doing that?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Freedom of religion was to protect one group of Christians from another.

Actually, the establishment clause was about preventing the (federal) government from establishing a state-sanction church (as in the Church of England). Today many people think it means freedom from religion. That's a different idea altogether.

[tonton]

Freedom of religion encompasses freedom from religion you dolt. Are you saying we shouldn't have freedom from religion if that's what we want?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by tonton
Freedom of religion encompasses freedom from religion

Not really.

Originally posted by tonton
you dolt.

Grow up. Behave (and communicate) like an adult.

Originally posted by tonton
Are you saying we shouldn't have freedom from religion if that's what we want?

No. But that's not what the amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

That's all.

It is really pretty simple.

No where does it say that anyone is guaranteed some "right" to never hear any religious message or ever be exposed to any religious expressions. In fact, quite the opposite appears to be the intent...by expressly allowing the "exercise thereof" implies that those who do not neccessarily want to see the "exercise thereof" might be exposed to it. Uh oh.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Actually, the establishment clause was about preventing the (federal) government from establishing a state-sanction church (as in the Church of England). It's true that the First Amendment prohibits an official national religion, but I think it was intended to go further than that. It's not as if any government involvement in religion short of an official state religion would have been OK with the founders.Today many people think it means freedom from religion. That's a different idea altogether. I completely agree that the First Amendment guarantees nobody that they can be free from religion.

But this is a caricature of what church-state separationists want. We can't shut down a church because it's on our way to work. We can't make someone walking down the street take off their yarmulke. We want government out of religion. Not private individuals. Government government government! Government! Government government! (Sung to the tune of "Developers (http://www.msboycott.com/media/ballmer_developers.mpg)" by S. Ballmer.)

[tonton]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No where does it say that anyone is guaranteed some "right" to never hear any religious message or ever be exposed to any religious expressions. In fact, quite the opposite appears to be the intent...by expressly allowing the "exercise thereof" implies that those who do not neccessarily want to see the "exercise thereof" might be exposed to it. Uh oh.

The government by law cannot pressure the public to accept any particular religion. To do so would reduce their right to practice their own religion. The display of religious messages in courthouses and government buildings does exactly that.

In the private sector, you can display what you want.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by tonton
The government by law cannot pressure the public to accept any particular religion. To do so would reduce their right to practice their own religion.

Agreed.

Originally posted by tonton
The display of religious messages in courthouses and government buildings does exactly that.

Possibly.

Originally posted by tonton
In the private sector, you can display what you want.

True...but there is the matter of the "public square" as well...open to all...whether holding a "Gay Pride" or "Anti-Abortion" rally or everything in-between. Remember "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Most people stop reading the 1st amendment at the first comma ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion").

Oh, and BTW...posting the 10 commandments in a government building technically is arguably not a violation of the 1st amendment (read it carefully).