Religious vs. Historic Symbols

[strandinthewind]

Just as I predicted and rightly so IMO.
________________________________________________________

Supreme Court bars Ten Commandments at courthouses

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.

The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the conflict over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays -- 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.

"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc -- Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.

Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.

He was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

"In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."

"The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote.

The case was one of two heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas. That case asks whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on the grounds outside the state capitol.

The cases marked the first time since 1980 the high court tackled the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets.

A broader ruling than the one rendered Monday could have determined the allowable role of religion in a wide range of public contexts, from the use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a question that has sharply divided the lower courts in recent years.

But in their ruling Monday, justices chose to stick with a cautious case-by-case approach.

Two Kentucky 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."

Other cases
Also Monday, the Supreme Court rejected appeals from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago -- whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.

The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering.

"Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers.

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The Supreme Court also Monday overturned a ruling that required cable operators to open up their high-speed Internet lines to rivals. (Full story)

The decision is a big victory for the Federal Communications Commission and major telecommunications companies, including Charter Communications, Time Warner Cable and SBC Communications.

On the losing side are small Internet service providers, including Earthlink, consumer rights groups, and a host of local governments.

At issue in the case, FCC v. Brand X, was whether cable operators should be required under federal law to lease their cable lines to competitors, much the way local phone companies were forced years ago to open up their lines to

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/sc....ap/index.html

[estranged4life]

as Ray Charles stated before his passing:

"I saw that one comin'..."

[irishgrl]

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

All Right Wing Christian Fundies TAKE NOTE!

[mylittledemon]

personally, I think the seperation of Church/State is a good thing. We don't want to end up in a theocratic society. However, I also feel that the 10 Commandments are something that all men can live by. If you actually read them, they are very basic, and I think most people would agree they are "good." But in the end, because they are Biblically based I suppose they don't belong in the legal system.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.

Idiot. I hate him. He is soooo biased.

Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.

What horse****. Yeah, they knew what they were doing was unconstitutional, so, rather than taking it down, they just "watered it down". If they have a place in our legal history why do they need be "watered down"? I thought they were perfectly acceptable as is??? Asshole.

Two Kentucky 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."

If they're so proud of their religion why don't they just come out and state that they want to convert everybody instead of all this renaming crapola.

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Why isn't Robert Novak being thrown in the clink along with these two? He knows more than they do. What a creep.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

personally, I think the seperation of Church/State is a good thing. We don't want to end up in a theocratic society. However, I also feel that the 10 Commandments are something that all men can live by. If you actually read them, they are very basic, and I think most people would agree they are "good." But in the end, because they are Biblically based I suppose they don't belong in the legal system.

I agree that we could all live by them and be better people. The legal problem exists in what is traditionally viewed as the first four - to wit:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

______________________________________________________

Thus, when the govt. says the Ten Commandments are the law, that is the same thing as establishing Judeo Christianity as the official religion of the US, which is forbidden by the U.S. Const.

Here is a cool discussion for anyone interested

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c7.htm

In the end, I think if the far right wing Christian zealots did not try and sneak the TC into public places in a clear effort to make all non-Chrsitians feel like outsiders in the highly Christian U.S., there would be no big deal. But, a little research will demonstrate that this purpose is the reason behind everyone of these public mountings of the TC - it is just to piss off people.

On edit and a re read - not all that was directed at you and none of it was meant in a bad way