Ten Commandments cases Before the Supreme Court
(1/1)
Frodo:
Division of Church, State At High Court
Ten Commandments Displays On Government Land at Issue
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 3, 2005; Page A03
The subject at the Supreme Court yesterday was the Ten Commandments on government property, and Moses was the star of the show.
A stone image of the patriarch, holding a Hebrew-inscribed tablet, occupies a prominent place in the justices' own courtroom, alongside Confucius, John Marshall and others in a frieze dedicated to history's great lawgivers.
As lawyers argued for and against disputed displays of the Decalogue in Texas and Kentucky, they and the justices repeatedly referred to that frieze.
What if, instead of a six-foot stone monument on the state Capitol grounds bearing the words of the Ten Commandments -- beginning with "I am the Lord thy God" -- Texas posted a version such as the one Moses holds in the frieze, in which only the last five are visible, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked.
"That is still unconstitutional. It would still be the state of Texas expressing the message that there is a God," replied Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor representing an opponent of the Texas monument. The court's frieze is constitutional, Chemerinsky said, because it places the Commandments in a secular, historical context.
So does the Texas monument, countered Greg Abbott, the attorney general of Texas. He told the court that it is part of a "parklike" area dotted with monuments to veterans, pioneers and other "historical influences" that have shaped Texas.
The Texas and Kentucky cases, argued separately over two hours, represent the court's first foray since 1980 into an issue that most recently boiled over in 2003 with the failed effort of then-Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore to install a massive stone copy of the Ten Commandments at the state Supreme Court.
Opponents of displaying the Ten Commandments on public property say it amounts to a governmental imposition of monotheism. Proponents say it is often nothing more than a recognition of the role Judeo-Christian norms played in Western Civilization and the founding of the United States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A429-2005Mar2.html
opebo:
It will be great to get the government out of the promotion of religion business. However I suppose even if we're lucky and get this christian propaganda out of the courts, it will be shoved right back in again after Bush gets to make an appointment or two.
Richard:
Quote from: opebo on March 03, 2005, 07:30:09 AM
It will be great to get the government out of the promotion of religion business. However I suppose even if we're lucky and get this christian propaganda out of the courts, it will be shoved right back in again after Bush gets to make an appointment or two.
You realize that all our laws are based on Anglo Saxon Common Law, which is the Law of God and is based on the Ten Commandments?
It is almost sure case that Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Renquist will vote in favor of displaying it, and Beyers, Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens voting against it. Sandra Day O'Conner is a tough cookie. I don't know what she will decide, but I hope she will side with Justice Scalia. This will be another 5-4 decision.
Time for Stevens to retire.
opebo:
Quote from: Richius on March 03, 2005, 12:33:23 PM
Quote from: opebo on March 03, 2005, 07:30:09 AM
It will be great to get the government out of the promotion of religion business. However I suppose even if we're lucky and get this christian propaganda out of the courts, it will be shoved right back in again after Bush gets to make an appointment or two.
You realize that all our laws are based on Anglo Saxon Common Law, which is the Law of God and is based on the Ten Commandments?
So? Just because one has erred in the past doesn't mean one cannot reform.
Navigation
[0] Message Index