The US supreme court said today that a ten commandents display outside of a courthouse in Texas was okay, but a ten commandents display inside a courthouse in Kentucky was not okay.

HUH?!?! 


it's all about context.  The display in Kentucky was clearly a religion sponsered display, the one in Texas was not placed in a religious context and unchallenged for decades

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA062705.scotus.en.4ea04169.html

Supreme Court splits on Ten Commandments
The Christian Science Monitor
By: Warren Richey
06/27/05

WASHINGTON – In a major showdown over the presentation of religious symbols and sacred text on public property, the US Supreme Court has made it somewhat easier for government officials to justify displays like the Ten Commandments.

But at the same time, the nation's highest court put officials on notice that their motives must be clearly secular for such displays to pass constitutional muster.

In two important church-state rulings announced Monday, the high court upheld a Ten Commandments display in Texas, but struck down one in Kentucky.

The rulings came on a busy final day of the US Supreme Court's 2004-2005 term that included no announced retirement by any justice. Many analysts say an announcement could come at any time.

In one Ten Commandments case the court said an outdoor public presentation of the Decalogue among other monuments on the Texas State Capitol grounds in Austin did not amount to an unconstitutional government promotion of religion.

The majority justices said that while the Texas display was an acknowledgment of a sacred religious text by the government, the public exhibit did not cross the line into impermissible proselytizing. The vote in the Texas case was 5 to 4.

Setting the stage for church-state litigation

But the high court reached a different conclusion in a Kentucky case involving a Ten Commandments display on the wall of two county courthouses.

The justices ruled 5 to 4 that public officials were not motivated by a necessary secular purpose in ordering the courthouse display. Instead the majority ruled that government officials in the Kentucky case had acted in a way that sought to advance religion in violation of the separation of church and state.

The swing vote determining the outcome in both cases was Justice Stephen Breyer.

In a concurring opinion in the Texas case, Justice Breyer illustrated how close that case was for him. "The circumstances surrounding the monument's placement on the capitol grounds and its physical setting provide a strong, but not conclusive, indication that the Commandments' text as used on this monument conveys a predominantly secular message," he says.

"The determinative factor here, however, is that 40 years passed in which the monument's presence, legally speaking, went unchallenged," Breyer writes. "Those 40 years suggest more strongly than can any set of formulaic tests that few individuals ... are likely to have understood the monument as amounting ... to a government effort to establish religion."

The First Amendment's establishment clause bars the government from taking actions that promote or endorse religion or a particular religious faith.

Some legal scholars hold the view that the establishment clause requires a strict separation between church and state. They say religion is best protected by minimizing potential government entanglements. Others say strict enforcement of separation can force government into a posture of hostility toward religion and the religious.

The high court has carved out a middle position in this ongoing and increasingly heated debate.

Nonetheless, analysts say the two decisions and the sharp split within the court set the stage for more church-state litigation with increasing focus on the context and history of the display. But ultimately the decisions may provide a road map for officials seeking to defend such displays.

"It leaves us litigating each and every one of these cases individually," says Douglas Laycock, a church-state expert and law professor at the University of Texas Law School. "Everyone can manipulate the facts," he says. "The lesson for state governments is, disguise your purpose."

Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University Law School professor who argued the Texas case, said future cases will depend on context and history. If the display is part of a broad presentation of sources of law such as exists at the US Supreme Court, the court will probably uphold it, he says. "But the court is always going to be looking at the purpose of the government action, the context, and history."

'A purpose to favor one faith'

The decisions come in two different cases, Van Orden v. Perry, involving a Ten Commandments display on the Texas state capitol grounds in Austin, and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, involving a sequence of Ten Commandments displays on the walls of two county courthouses.

The Texas case involves a six-foot-tall tombstone-like monument donated to the state 40 years ago by a civic group, the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

Scores of similar monuments were donated to cities and towns across the nation as part of a promotion for Cecil DeMille's epic movie "The Ten Commandments." The monuments were displayed without controversy for decades, but in recent years, a series of legal challenges have been launched to have them removed from public property.

The Kentucky case involves an attempt by McCreary County officials to authorize the display of a framed copy of the Ten Commandments in local courthouses.

After the display triggered a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, officials responded by surrounding the Commandments with other historic documents mentioning God or raising religious themes. Upon obtaining advice from lawyers, the presentation was changed again, this time to include documents considered to have played a foundational role in the development of American law, including the Ten Commandments.

A federal appeals court upheld the Texas display, but a different appeals court panel struck down as unconstitutional the display in Kentucky.

Writing for the majority in the Kentucky case, Justice David Souter said that government officials had acted with an improper purpose in posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses. "When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," Souter writes.

"A purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion generally, clashes with the understanding that liberty and social stability demand a tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens," he says.

He says the high court is not saying that a sacred text can never be integrated constitutionally into a governmental display on law or history. He cited as an example the frieze in the high court's own courtroom depicting Moses holding tablets with 17 other lawgivers.

The history of Ten Commandments cases

Prior to Monday's rulings, the high court had last decided a Ten Commandments case in 1980, when the justices, in a 5-to-4 ruling, struck down a Kentucky law requiring the Decalogue be posted in public school classrooms.

"The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature," the high court said in 1980. "The Ten Commandments are undeniably sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact."

The Ten Commandments issue was the subject of extensive public debate in 2003 when Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore refused to obey a federal court order that he remove a 2-1/2 ton Ten Commandments monument he had placed in the rotunda of the state supreme court building. He was removed from office.

That monument is currently on a nationwide tour visiting various churches that support Mr. Moore's cause. It has become a symbol to many religious conservatives of what they view as a concerted campaign to erase any mention of God or religion from the public square in America.

Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0628/p01s03-usju.html

I can't believe one of Clinton's judges upheld the ten commandments display in Texas.  That's the only real surprise today.  I wrote in another thread that they were going to let the ten commandments in Texas stay, but go against the ones in Kentucky.  That was obvious.

Ginsburg used to be a high-ranking member of the ACLU, and has never ruled against the ACLU in a lawsuit brought on by them.  She is a clearly biased judge and shouldn't be allowed to make decisions on any lawsuits brought on by the ACLU.

Ginsburg used to be a high-ranking member of the ACLU, and has never ruled against the ACLU in a lawsuit brought on by them.  She is a clearly biased judge and shouldn't be allowed to make decisions on any lawsuits brought on by the ACLU.


Why?  Because she believes in upholding civil liberties?  Should other justices, members or former members of the Federlist Society be forced to recuse themsleves?

Ginsburg used to be a high-ranking member of the ACLU, and has never ruled against the ACLU in a lawsuit brought on by them.  She is a clearly biased judge and shouldn't be allowed to make decisions on any lawsuits brought on by the ACLU.


This is not a Scalia duck hunt.

Can I display the Wicca Rede outside the courthouse, too?





Cat

Can I display the Wicca Rede outside the courthouse, too?





Cat

I'm an agnostic, so I want my big question mark sculpture out there too!

guys, the ten commandments are presented as a law system, not a religious law system.  There are rules there like "Thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not steal" etc that arent really religious things...the Ten commandments are looked at just as much from a secular perspective as a religious ones.  We shouldnt disregard the law system presented in commandments 6-10 because 1-5 deal with religious issues. 

Also, anyone notice how Moses is all over the Supreme court bulding?

Why?  Because she believes in upholding civil liberties?  Should other justices, members or former members of the Federlist Society be forced to recuse themsleves?


yes

especially if there is a conflict of interest


I am the chief justice of my Student Government associations Supreme Court branch, and as a rule, I always recuse myself if one of the groups in question is even remotly associated to one I belong to or have major influence in (which is a lot).  I also try to persuade the other justices to do the same, but it doesnt always work out that way.  If I suggest that they do recuse and they dont I have them submit in writing why they felt that they shouldnt have to and it is included in the final files of the case. 

Why?  Because she believes in upholding civil liberties?  Should other justices, members or former members of the Federlist Society be forced to recuse themsleves?


Why not?  She is clearly unfit to make an unbiased decision on a case brought on by a lawsuit from the ACLU.  She should recuse herself, just like Scalia did with the supreme court case involving "under God" in the pledge.

here's some snopes.com stuff you might find interesting:

http://snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/support/justices/portraits/Rehnquist2.gif
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Leaning: conservative
Appointed by: Nixon, promoted to chief Justice by Reagan

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/support/justices/portraits/Scalia.gif
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
Leaning: conservative
Appointed by: Reagan

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/support/justices/portraits/Breyer.gif
Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer   
Leaning: liberal
Appointed by: Clinton

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/support/justices/portraits/Souter.gif
Associate Justice David H. Souter
Leaning: liberal
Appointed by: Bush Sr.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/support/justices/portraits/Kennedy.gif
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy
Leaning: moderate
Appointed by: Reagan

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/support/justices/portraits/OConnor.gif
Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Leaning: moderate
Appointed by: Reagan

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/support/justices/portraits/Thomas.gif
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Leaning: conservative
Appointed by: Bush Sr.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/support/justices/portraits/Stevens.gif
Associate Justice John Paul Stevens
Leaning: liberal
Appointed by: Ford

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/support/justices/portraits/Ginsburg.gif
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Leaning: liberal
Appointed by: Clinton

Justices in favor of the ten commandments display in Texas: Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Thomas and Breyer.
Justices opposed to the ten commandments display in Texas: O'Connor, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter.

Justices in favor of the ten commandments display in Kentucky: Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
Justives opposed to the ten commandments display in Kentucky: O'Connor, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer.

yes

especially if there is a conflict of interest


I am the chief justice of my Student Government associations Supreme Court branch, and as a rule, I always recuse myself if one of the groups in question is even remotly associated to one I belong to or have major influence in (which is a lot).  I also try to persuade the other justices to do the same, but it doesnt always work out that way.  If I suggest that they do recuse and they dont I have them submit in writing why they felt that they shouldnt have to and it is included in the final files of the case. 


Then I suppose that all the justices who would call themselves members of the Christian religion should abstain from ruling in cases brought to the court by other members of this religion?

It is clear why the Texan monument is allowed to stay... it sits there with many other non-religious monuments which all have a theme, in that of the influences the early Texan settlers (the ones who were white and Christian, that is... not the Native Americans). I know because I have been there twice, and am in fact sitting about three hours drive from where the monument lies.

If it were meant to be a religious display, I would be in favour of removing it immediately. I don't care if the people who dominated this country and its native inhabitants were Christian, that point is irrelevant to the site of a capitol building or a courthouse in a modern context. This is a diverse nation, and I don't feel like having Judeo-Christian symbols pounded down my throat every time a turn around in it. Could you imagine the hullaballoo that would surround the display of say, a statue of Buddha in a school yard to promote an environment of tranquility? The image of the Buddha screams tranquility as much as the Ten Commandments scream "you're the epitomy of imperfection in life forms created by a vengeful God, you can't possibly obey all of these rules, it's against your nature... which this same god supposedly gave you." Wait... am I the only one picking this up from the Ten Commandments?

There are proper places for such "historical" displays... like churches, temples, and museums. I'd be put much more at ease to see a monument dedicated to the Constitution or to the Declaration of Independence, or the Gettysburg Address sitting in front of a courthouse or a capitol.

Then I suppose that all the justices who would call themselves members of the Christian religion should abstain from ruling in cases brought to the court by other members of this religion?


it depends.  Is the advancement of one religion an important part of the case?  Just because one or two of the parties are members of a religion it doesnt mean they should recuse.  Only if the religous organization is bringing up an issue that has to do with the religion and members of the bench are highly involved in that religion.  I consider it an issue of personal morals more than anything

it depends.  Is the advancement of one religion an important part of the case?  Just because one or two of the parties are members of a religion it doesnt mean they should recuse.  Only if the religous organization is bringing up an issue that has to do with the religion and members of the bench are highly involved in that religion.  I consider it an issue of personal morals more than anything


The 10 Commandments are a Christian thing.  Any Christian is going to be biased where they're concerned. 

And though I'm not religious, I agree with Crazymom's take on the commandments.  They're more or less common sense.  I don't really care if they're on public property - I realize that I'm a minority, especially in the state of Utah where I live, so I accept that if I'm surrounded by a Christian majority I'm pretty much going to have to accept their influence in things.  That's fine.  But let's stop pretending that Christians aren't going to do whatever they can to further Christianity.  It's what religious people do!  I'm not saying it in a negative way - it is what it is.

I just don't want the Ten Commandments shoved at me by right-wing politicians and fundamentalist bigshots who act like they're exempt from following them.  Not one adherent to Christian Right dogma has moral authority over me or you.  They've done nothing to earn it. 

I don't want the Ten Commandments posted on public property.  Commandments four through ten do relate to universally acknowledged moral and ethical behavior.  However, commandments one through three are strictly religious commandments. Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike would agree on them philosophically speaking.  However, if I am not religious, or my religious beliefs depart from the Abrahamic origins of those said three religions, then commandments one through three violate my freedom as an American to worship, or not, how I please.

The First Commandment, in spite of Crazymom's liberal interpretation, do not refer to just any old God.  It doesn't mean worship Buddha or Gaia if you want, just be into it with your heart.  It refers to the Biblical God.  Furthermore, the Christian Right has made it clear that Allah doesn't count.  According to the Christian Right, the Jews are OK because Israel is our ally in militaristic oppression and we'll let the Jews auto-convert to Jesus-worshippers on Judgment day.  Bush has paid lip service to Islam, but that's just a political move, the leading Christian fundamentalist ministers say no way to Mohammedans!

Taking the name of the Lord in vain again refers to the Judeo-Christian God.  You could extrapolate it to mean whatever higher power one believes in, but that's a liberal interpretation, and guys like Judge Roy Moore are not into liberal interpretations.

And I don't know where Crazymom got the idea that the Judeo-Christian rite of "Sabbath" means "take a day to relax and do whatever you want."  Maybe she really is crazy!
:D

The Christian Right says we're guaranteed "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion."  However, if we are truly free to choose, then we're free to choose to be Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, or Animists.  If the government can endorse the Judeo-Christian beliefs by posting the Ten Commandments on public grounds, then the government has stated a preference by the government for the people.  Such an officially declared preference renders any other religious adherent a second-class citizen thus curbing religious freedom altogether.

I have no problem with the Ten Commandments either.  I just don't want them shoved at my by right-wing politicians and fundamentalist bigshots who act like they're exempt from following them.  Not one adherent to Christian Right dogma has moral authority over me or you.  They've done nothing to earn it. 


I agree with you - I really do.  But after years of anger and resentment, I've finally just accepted the fact that Christians are the majority, and no matter how hard I fight, I'm never going to get them to understand that they really don't know what is best for me.  I also think that because of where I live, I have to either accept them or go insane.  80% of Utah is Mormon, and there really is no such thing as separation of church and state.  I have lived out of state before, but chose to come back because I have a wonderful, close family here that I want to live near.  So I deal with the dominant religon the best way I can.  I'll never agree with them, but because there is such a huge majority of them there really isn't anything I can do about it other than resign myself to the fact that I will live my life surrounded by religon, whether I like it or not.

I agree with you - I really do.  But after years of anger and resentment, I've finally just accepted the fact that Christians are the majority, and no matter how hard I fight, I'm never going to get them to understand that they really don't know what is best for me.  I also think that because of where I live, I have to either accept them or go insane.  80% of Utah is Mormon, and there really is no such thing as separation of church and state.  I have lived out of state before, but chose to come back because I have a wonderful, close family here that I want to live near.  So I deal with the dominant religon the best way I can.  I'll never agree with them, but because there is such a huge majority of them there really isn't anything I can do about it other than resign myself to the fact that I will live my life surrounded by religon, whether I like it or not.


I hear ya!  But I amended my post.  When I said I have no problem with the Ten Commandments, I meant so long as they're not imposed either explicitly or implicitly by the government.  As I say, the first three Commandments are irrefutably Judeo-Christian and not universally applicable to any old beliefs in morals or higher power.

THE TWO COMMANDMENTS by George Carlin

I have a problem with the Ten Commandments. Here it is: Why are there ten?
We don't need that many. I think the list of commandments was deliberately and
artificially inflated to get it up to ten. It's clearly a padded list.
Here's how it happened: About five thousand years ago, a bunch of religious and
political hustlers got together to figure out how they could control people and keep
them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything
they were told, so these guys announced that God- God personally- had given
one of them a list of ten commandments that he wanted everyone to follow.
They claimed the whole thing took place on a mountaintop, when no one else
was around.
  But let me ask you something: When these guys were sittin' around the tent
makin' all this up, why did he pick ten? Why ten? Why not nine or eleven?
I'll tell you why. Because ten sounds important. Ten sounds official. They knew
if they tried eleven, people wouldn't take them seriously. People would say,
"What're you kiddin' me? The Eleven Commandments? Get the fudge out of here!"
  Bun ten! Ten sounds important. Ten is the basis for the decimal system; it's a
decade. It's a psychologically satisfying number: the top ten; the ten most wanted;
the ten best dressed. So deciding on ten commandments was clearly a marketing
decision. And it's obviously a bullsheesh list. In truth, it's a political document,
artificially inflated to sell better.
  I'm going to show you how you can reduce the number of commandments
and come up with a list that's a bit more logical and realistic. We'll start with
the first three, and I'll use the Roman Catholic version because those are the
ones I was fed as a little boy.

I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME.

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN.

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH.

Okay, right off the bat, the first three commandments- pure bullsheesh.
"Sabbath day", "Lord's name", "strange gods." Spooky Language. Spooky language
designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious mumbo
jumbo like this apply to the lives of intelligent, civilized humans in the twenty-first
century. You throw out the first three commandments, and you're down to seven.

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER.

  This commandment is about obedience and respect for authority; in other words
it's simply a device for controlling people. The truth is, obedience and respect
should not be granted automatically. They should be earned. They should be
based on the parents' (or the authority figure's) performance. Some parents deserve
respect. Most of the don't. Period. We're down to six.

  Now, in the interest of logic- something religion has a really hard time with-
I'm going to skip around the list a bit:

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

  Stealing and lying. Actually, when you think about it, these two commandments
cover the same sort of behavior: dishonesty. Stealing and lying. So we don't need
two of them. Instead, we combine these two and we call it "Thou shalt not be
dishonest." Suddenly we're down to five.
  And as long as we're combining commandments I have two others that belong
together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE.

  Once again, these two prohibit the same sort of behavior; in this case, marital
infidelity. The difference between them is that coveting takes place in the mind.
And I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife,
otherwise what's a guy gonna think about when he's flogging his dong?
  But marital fidelity is a good idea, so I suggest we keep the idea and call
this commandment "Thou shalt no be unfaithful." Suddenly we are down to four.
  And when you think about it further, honesty and fidelity are actually parts of
the same overall value. So, in truth, we could combine the two honesty
commandments with the two fidelity commandments, and, using positive
language instead of negative, call the whole thing "Thou shalt always be honest
and faithful."  And now we're down to three.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.

  This one is just plain stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps
the economy going: Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O come All Ye
Faithful," you want one, too. Coveting creates jobs. Leave it alone.
  You throw out coveting and you're down to two now: the big, combined
honesty/fidelity commandment, and the one we haven't mentioned yet:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

  Murder, The Fifth Commandment. But, if you give it a little thought,
you realize that religion has never really had a problem with murder.
Not really. More people have been killed in the name of God then for any
other reason.
  To cite a few examples, just think about Irish history, the Middle East,
the Crusades, the Inquisition, our own abortion-doctor killings and, yes
the World Trade Center to see how seriously religious people take Thou
Shalt Not Kill. Apparently, to religious folks- especially the truly devout-
murder is negotiable. It just depends on who's doing the killing and who's
getting killed.
  And so, with all of this in mind, folks, I offer you my revised list of the
Two Commandments:

First:

THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE.

And second:

THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE AVENGER THEN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO.

  Two is all your need, folks. Moses could have carried them down the hill in
his pocket. And if we had a list like that, I wouldn't mind that brilliant judge in
Alabama displaying it prominently in his courthouse lobby. As long he included
one additional commandment:

THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!!!