posted
The Supreme Court just handed down their decision on the courtroom display of the Ten Commandments, which is the same as before: no display unless it is part of a larger display demonstrating legal history.
That caveat isn't making the broadcast news until after the "Supreme Court Bans Religion" headlines go past. Not as interesting, I suppose.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here - let's just post the story. The parts that I found interesting, I have bolded.
quote: WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.
Well, a case-by-case basis would give more local control, would it not?
Curious about the "homeless" attorney - a) why is his homelessness mentioned in the article? and b) what good does it do anyone to know that peice of information? Should we get a blow-by-blow description of where all the other involved parties live?
However, if you read the News-journalonline article, it says. . .
quote: 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.
I mean, hell, it sure sounds like they banned The Ten Commandments in their entirety from the courthouse, doesn't it?
A nit to pick, with the linked article, though.
quote: 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.
It looks to me like Breyer was the swing vote. He's the one that jumped ship on the second ruling, not O'Connor.
FOX appears to have made the same assumption. Do the journalists not read what they are writing, or am I somehow misinterpreting the vote?
quote: 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.
posted
It's never been the religious part of displaying the 10 commandements that bothers me.
My problem is that more than half of them aren't laws, and have nothing at all to do with the US Legal system. There'd be more truth in displaying Hammurabi's code, or Draconian law than the commandments. Only murder and theft are punishable offenses, except bearing false witness, which is perjury right? So okay, 30% of them are actual criminal offenses.
So to me it seems pointless to display them, they don't really deal with law. It's like putting creationism in a science text book, it explains how the earth was made sure, but it has nothing to do with science.
I have no problem with religion, my problem is with irrelevancy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a bit better. The AP changed their headline to Court: Some Ten Commandments displays OK.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Within hours of yesterday's Supreme Court decision allowing a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol, Christian groups announced a nationwide campaign to install similar displays in 100 cities and towns within a year.
Why would they do this? I can see fighting for the right to put or keep religious markers on sites connected to the event being commemorated. The Mormon memorial in Utah (I think - I can't find a link) was on a site directly attached to the event. The Oklahoma City memorial had a direct connection to the event. In both those situations, it seems both fitting and constitutional to include symbols of the religious faiths held by some or all of those being honored as part of the larger display.
But here, they're trying to add displays basically at random. There isn't any event that took place at these courthouses being memorialized.
quote:Mahoney, a minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, said a coalition of evangelical Christian organizations would analyze the Supreme Court rulings and formulate guidelines for erecting Ten Commandments monuments that can pass legal muster.
The decision relies on the context of the religious symbol within the overall setting. For example, the SCOTUS display includes a depiction of Moses receiving the ten commandments in a montage of other displays of law giving through the ages. This is probably acceptable.
The quote above makes it clear these groups will be forming displays in order to meet this guideline. What they seem to be missing is that the original purpose of the display is relevant to the legal analysis, too. A display in Kentucky that would probably be OK was struck down because the display was added around the commandments in response to a court decision. The court declared that this was a ruse to accomplish the original purpose - to advance the ten commandments.
These people will create displays, but their purpose is clear just from this article. Even if they convince the courts otherwise, they'll essentially be lying.
posted
I have to admit, I would have let the Kentucky one pass even if everyone was sure it was a ruse, provided that a casual observer couldn't tell. If it's among other displays, even if they were tacked on, the context is there, yes?
If it's so important to get the Ten Commandments into the courtroom that backers will include the rest of the history of law just so the Decalogue is included, I don't have a problem as long as it's a history of law, and not a history of Christian law.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to admit, I would have let the Kentucky one pass even if everyone was sure it was a ruse, provided that a casual observer couldn't tell. If it's among other displays, even if they were tacked on, the context is there, yes?
I might tend to agree were I deciding the case. But, knowing what the law is, these people are intending to basically lie about it. And that kind of ticks me off.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm starting a campaign to get Islamic and Draconian law monuments erected directly next to every single Christian monument placed that has no direct relation to the place it's being put at.
They couldn't argue against me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you guys think there's a difference between place-specific monuments and these? Even if you disagree about the suitability of religious symbols on government land in place-specific monuments, do you agree there's a qualitative difference? Or am I making a bigger deal of the difference than there really is?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But part of accurately reflecting the history and philosophy of American law is to include the strong influence of the Enlightenment, which would involve removing the first 3 or 4 commandments from active influences. As I've said, I'd have no trouble with posting the 10 Commandments for "historical" reasons if the display reflected this crucial part of history. For example, post the full 10, but cross out the ones that are not legitimate sources of law.
But it's not about a respect for history. It's about Christians wanting to mark their territory and make it clear to everyone that they're the top dogs in this country, even if they have to lie to do so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think so. Even if the intent of the people putting them there is to get the commandments in any way possible, if they are displayed as an equal part of a history of law I think they serve a valuable purpose. Even the most strident of atheists would have to agree that religion has played a huge part in the formation of our laws, and denying that is just as lopsided as featuring just the commandments on their own.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes and no. On the merits of the case, you bet. I think that the removal of the mission bell from the state flag of California was dumb and reactionary. There's a big difference between using religious symbology where it fits in a historical context and trying to slap a "America = Christianity" sticker on whatever you can get your hands on.
Of course, the so-called "historical" monuments seem to me at least to be transparent attempts to do the latter under the pretense of the former.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you talking these about these ten commandment monuments when you say "'historical' monuments"? Or are you talking about a monument to a group of mormon settlers who died in a particular spot, or the inclusion of the symbols of the faiths of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I thought we were just talking about the 10 Commandments things. I don't know much about the other two cases you mention. The Mormon thing, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be there. The OK City thing, I really don't know enough about. I imagine that both legitimate and illegitimate concerns are involved.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. I totally agree with you about the ten commandments. The article I linked makes it clear what they're trying to do, and it's not pretty.
The 10 commandment cases seem to be instigated by people with what I consider to be bad motives, although I think some of the defenders have good motives. The flip side are those who try to remove every religious symbol from almost every piece of public land (or even some land adjoining public land in some cases). These cases seem to be instigated by people with what I consider to be bad motives, although I think some of the defenders have good motives.
I can't find a link on either case right now, for some reason.
posted
Well, thanks Bob. Now I have something to do for the next three days. I'll have to find the book that it's in.
Though he does mention it once in an essay. "None of us are without sin -- the casting of stones is not our duty or our privilege."
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't he also say something like that in the last book of the Homecoming series at the very end?
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a story in one of the last two speaker books. Ender was telling someone a story that he'd heard on a world he spoke at.
someone commits a crime and then the town priest or elder or whatever comes out and says he who is without sin, so on and so forth, and then everyone realizes that they are all with sin. But then he goes and kills the woman who committed the crime, saying that if there weren't punishments, everyone would be committing crimes.
I don't rememeber the exact text, that's just from memory, but I'm ALMOST positive it was from Xenoside or CotM.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. It was definitely in one of the chapter lead-ins. It's a story told by San Angelo, who's actually quoting a Speaker (presumably Ender).
This means it's in Speaker, since the chapter lead-ins for Xenocide are conversations between the Hive Queen and Human. I forget about the lead-ins for Children of the Mind.
Another reason I know it's Speaker is because I read Speaker in college, and that's what made me want to read the rest.
quote: A great rabbi stands teaching in the marketplace. It happens that a husband finds proof that morning of his wife's adultery, and a mob carries her to to the marketplace to stone her to death. (There is a familiar version of this story, but a friend of mine, a Speaker for the Dead, has told me of two other rabbis that faced the same situation. Those are the ones I'm going to tell you.)
The rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him the mob forbears, and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. "Is there anyone here," he says to them, "who has not desired another man's wife, another woman's husband?"
They murmur and say, "We all know the desire. But, Rabbi, none of us has acted on it."
The rabbi Says, "Then kneel down and give thanks that God made you strong." He takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he lets her go, he whispers to her, "Tell the lord magistrate who saves his mistress. Then he'll know I am his loyal servant."
So the woman lives, because the community is too corrupt to protect itself from disorder.
Another rabbi, another city. He goes to her and stops the mob, as in the other story, and says, "Which of you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone."
The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory of their own individual sins. Someday, they think, I may be like this woman, and I'll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her the way I wish to be treated.
As they open their hands and let the stones fall to the ground, the rabbi picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman's head, and throws it straight down with all his might. It crushes her skull and dasher her brains onto the cobblestone.
"Nor am I without sin," he says to the people. "But if we allow only perfect people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead and our city with it."
So the woman died because he community was too rigid to endure her deviance.
The famous version of this story is noteworthy because it is so startlingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay and rigor mortis, and when they veer too far, they die. Only one rabbi dared to expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law ans still forgive the deviation. So, of course, we killed him.
--San Angelo Letters to an Incipient Heretic, trans. Amai a Tudomundo Para Que Deus Vos Ame Cristao, 103:72:54:2
Papa Janitor, if that particular bit is too much for the copyright thing, edit as you see fit. I couldn't figure out how to edit it without changing the meaning. Once the interested parties have read it, I can delete it if necessary. But some people don't know how to unpack. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Dagonee. You were right, I just hadn't gotten that far yet. I was skimming the book, because I skimmed your post. Had I read all of the words of your post, I would have found it sooner. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Prominently posting the Ten Commandments in the middle of a courthouse whilst loudly proclaiming that worshipping Jesus is the foundation of law and order is a CLEAR violation of the establishment clause. No particular brand of Jewish mythology can ever be sponsored by the state unless the First Amendment is altered through the traditional process of amending the Constitution.
And that really has nothing to do with putting a cross by the side of the highway to mark where somebody was run over by a drunk. A fact which the justices seem to be cognizant of.
What am I missing here that makes this controversial?
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thanks Dagonee. You were right, I just hadn't gotten that far yet. I was skimming the book, because I skimmed your post. Had I read all of the words of your post, I would have found it sooner.
Every word of a Dagonee post is vital. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Kayla. Brilliant writing. I remember it now and it is one of the things that made me go "I wish I'd written that." Or "I wish I could write like that."
posted
All this having knowledge of Fear and living with her. Tsk Tsk.
Back before I stopped being a Dr. Laura fan, and before I was a Dr. Laura fan, I was not a Dr. Laura fan. I thought I could do a better job than her on expouding the 10 commandments. I was surprised once it came down to it how many of them have to do with attitudes. My assumption had been that Jesus had translated all these cut and dried rules into behaviors. And the first four are pretty much all about being true to God.
So I guess if we really want to separate church and state we can do that, but the long term ramifications for separating all church and state and not just the dominant ones could get annoying. I mean, is getting rid of all animals on currency and seals anti-Native American, or pro-Islamic?
I think there are only two of the 10 commandments that are relatively agreed upon in modern society. Don't kill and don't steal. But we actively promote covetousness. I myself on this very forum have argued for a narrow interpretation of bearing false witness. Honoring parents and Adultery... I guess a lot of secularist would take offense if I say our society encourages breaking these. But it seems that way sometimes. Then you have Sabbath, Name of the Lord, Graven Images and other Gods. Those were the first four I mentioned earlier.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Back before I stopped being a Dr. Laura fan, and before I was a Dr. Laura fan, I was not a Dr. Laura fan.
Ok. There exists a timeline consistent with that sentence. But it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, nor do I see its relevance to the rest of the post. Would you care to elucidate?
As for the 10 commandments, I think Jante's Law would be a lot more apropos to current fundie attitudes. I. Thou shalt not believe thou art anything. II. Thou shalt not believe thou art as good as than us. III. Thou shalt not believe thou art smarter than us. IV. Thou shalt not imagine thou art better than us. V. Thou shalt not think thou knowest more than us. VI. Thou shalt not think thou art more than us. VII. Thou shalt not think thou art skilled. VIII. Thou shalt not alugh at us. IX. Thou shalt not believe anyone cares for thee. X. Thou shalt not think thou canst teach us anything.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
