10 Commandments Displays - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-27-2005, 10:16 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:56 PM
10 Commandments Displays

Court Splits on Ten Commandments Displays By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
43 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays inside courthouses, saying they violated the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Sending dual signals in ruling on this issue for the first time in a quarter-century, the high court said that displays of the Ten Commandments — like their own courtroom frieze — are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.

In effect, the court said it was taking the position that issues of Ten Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.

In that 5-4 ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a 6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote. The second ruling, likewise, was by a 5-4 margin.

Justice Antonin Scalia released a stinging dissent in the courthouse case, declaring, "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle."

The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case left themselves legal wiggle room, saying that some displays inside courthouses — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held. Those courthouse displays are unconstitutional, the justices said, because their religious content is overemphasized.

In contrast, a 6-foot-granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol — one of 17 historical displays on the 22-acre lot — was determined to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history.

"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious — they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority in the case involving the display outside the state capitol of Texas.

"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said.

Rehnquist was joined in his opinion by Scalia, and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stephen G. Breyer filed a separate opinion concurring in the result.

The rulings were the court's first major statement on the Ten Commandments since 1980, when justices barred their display in public schools. But the high court's split verdict leaves somewhat unsettled the role of religion in American society, a question that has become a flashpoint in U.S. politics.

"While the court correctly rejects the challenge to the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds, a more fundamental rethinking of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains in order," Thomas wrote in a separate opinion.

Dissenting in the Texas case, Justice John Paul Stevens argued the display was an improper government endorsement of religion. Stevens noted in large letters the monument proclaims 'I AM the LORD thy God.'"

"The sole function of the monument on the grounds of Texas' State Capitol is to display the full text of one version of the Ten Commandments," Stevens wrote.

"The monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any event in the history of the state," Stevens wrote. "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God."

Justices O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.

The case was one of two heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Ten Commandments displays, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets.

In Texas, the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the exhibit to the state in 1961, and it was installed about 75 feet from the Capitol in Austin. The group gave thousands of similar monuments to American towns during the 1950s and '60s.

Thomas Van Orden, a former lawyer who is now homeless, challenged the display in 2002. He lost twice in the lower courts in holdings the Supreme Court affirmed Monday.

Meanwhile in Kentucky, two counties originally hung the copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After the ACLU filed suit, the counties modified their displays to add other documents demonstrating "America's Christian heritage," including the national motto of "In God We Trust" and a version of the Congressional Record declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible."

When a federal court ruled those displays had the effect of endorsing religion, the counties erected a third Ten Commandments display with surrounding documents such as the Bill of Rights and Star-Spangled Banner to highlight their role in "our system of law and government."

The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal subsequently struck down the third display as a "sham" for the religious intent behind it.

Ten Commandments displays are supported by a majority of Americans, according to an AP-Ipsos poll. The poll taken in late February found that 76 percent support it and 23 percent oppose it.

The case is McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.

___

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-27-2005, 01:18 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:56 PM
So, the Ten Commandments have gone the way of the Nativity Scene. OK if done among other displays. Not OK if by itself.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 01:19 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:56 PM
If people want a nativity scene, they can erect one in their front yard. No one's stopping you.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 01:20 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:56 PM
I don't really have a problem with the Ten Commandments being displayed on public property. I don't see it as a big issue.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 01:57 PM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:56 PM
i thought it was a pretty nuanced decision.

they are appropriate in a historical context, but the phrase " 'I AM the LORD thy God" is clearly an endorsement of a particular kind of religion, and as such, represents an endorsement/establishment of religion by the court.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-27-2005, 02:44 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
but the phrase " 'I AM the LORD thy God" is clearly an endorsement of a particular kind of religion, and as such, represents an endorsement/establishment of religion by the court.
How is the phrase 'I AM the LORD thy God' in he conext of the Ten Commandments an establishment (endorsement) of a specific religion?

Is there anything that tells you what to believe?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 02:47 PM   #7
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


How is the phrase 'I AM the LORD thy God' in he conext of the Ten Commandments an establishment (endorsement) of a specific religion?

Is there anything that tells you what to believe?

what does the word "Commandment" mean to you?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-27-2005, 03:01 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Do you feel "commanded" by the government?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 03:07 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 11:56 PM

Why is every question answered with another question?
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 03:08 PM   #10
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Do you feel "commanded" by the government?


are laws not commands?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-27-2005, 03:13 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 06:56 PM
I dont see whats wrong about displaying something moral in public
__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 03:13 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,267
Local Time: 04:56 PM
I'm on the fence on this one. On one hand, I know that there'd be some Christians out there who would find it very offensive to have another religion's symbols and texts on public property, and would demand that it be removed, so why should this be any different? If we don't allow any other religion's symbols and texts on public property, then I would think that the same thing should have to apply to Christian symbols and texts, too. And if Christians DO insist on having their religious things put in public places, fine, but then I'd best start seeing other religions' stuff being allowed there, too.

And there is the separation of church and state deal, too-it will come across as an endorsement of a faith, even if that's not the intention of the people who work at the public place.

But at the same time, I'm also of the belief that you can't get rid of every single thing out there that may potentially offend people, regardless of what religion you belong to, or if you're non-religious, too, or whatever. And just because a religion's text is stated somewhere, that doesn't automatically mean you have to agree with it.

So I don't know. Hmm.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 06-27-2005, 03:23 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
Why is every question answered with another question?
What do you mean?




__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 03:26 PM   #14
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
I dont see whats wrong about displaying something moral in public


who's morals?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-27-2005, 03:27 PM   #15
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


What do you mean?



what are you implying?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com