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.

---

quote:

---

Ten Commandments Barred From Courthouses

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun:
What about Jesus' Two Commandments?

Maybe politicians didn't read the new testament, that would explain a lot.

---

Or maybe they're all Jewish.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
And the question remains - is there a qualitative difference in those situations where the case for historical commemoration can be made?

Dagonee
P.S., the more correct phrasing would be "some Christians".
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
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.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Let he who is without sin cast the first monument.
 

---

Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 
well then we'll have no monuments then, eh?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I'm sure someone will step forward and claim to be without sin.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Now, what did OSC teach us about this parable?

Since no one is without sin, we should all be casting monuments, no?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I'm drawing a blank on that one. Context?
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
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."
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Are you speaking of the two alternative versions of that parable?

Those are found in the introduction to a chapter in Speaker for the Dead.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Oh, the sweet release. I love you, Dagonee.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

 

---

Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 
Doesn't he also say something like that in the last book of the Homecoming series at the very end?
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Nooo!


 

---

Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 
wait, i have the book about a foot or two away, let me check!
 

---

Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 
ok so maybe i'm wrong. but i didn't skim through all of it.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Actually, I haven't found it in Speaker yet, either.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
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.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Check Chapter 16.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
It is in speaker. It is why I own 3 copies of Speaker. Four, if you count Bob's.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Chapter 16

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.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I have never read a passage in a piece of fiction that has made me ponder a particular piece of scripture as much as this one has.

We should cross link it to the thread on the other side about sunday school teachers who hate SF.
 

---

Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
 
I don't understand the confusion here.

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?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 

quote:

---

It is why I own 3 copies of Speaker. Four, if you count Bob's.

---

quote:

---

Every word of a Dagonee post is vital.

---

quote:

---

Wow, you really need to work on this.

I know some people are going to tell you that you should be learning to say " We own 4 copies of Speaker."

I'm not one of them. You now own 4 copies of Speaker. Bob gets all the stuff in the garage. If your in a good mood.

Remember, "what's his is mine and what's mine is mine."

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
 
This whole thing annoys me greatly. Mostly from the fact that the Supreme Court feels like they have nothing better to do than take out religous symbols out of government establishments. Why do people even care? Do they look up to the government so much that they're afraid they'll be influenced by it? The same people who probably know almost nothing about it, except who the current president is, and what horrible things he's done?

Christian bashing has become such a huge thing now a days that people will do anything to bring it down a notch. To me, this doesn't even enter into the whole, seperation of church and state thing. "Endowed by our Creater..." Holy crap, the Decleration of Independence is unconstitutional! We must get rid of it! And before you say that's a ridiculous statement, there was a teacher who got in trouble at school for teaching the DoI to his students because of that line.

How many people would actually care if a statue of Buddha was displayed in a court house? Probably very few people. I know I wouldn't. Simply because, it's not a big deal and has no effect on me what so ever.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Why do people even care? Do they look up to the government so much that they're afraid they'll be influenced by it?"

"How many people would actually care if a statue of Buddha was displayed in a court house?"

Would you like a real answer to these questions, or are you spouting off rhetorically?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
The Declaration of Independence can't be unconstitutional, it was created before the Constitution .
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
Things created before the Constitution can be unconstitutional. It's things that aren't laws that can't be
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
This is true. Defamation common law created before the Constitution was declared unconstitutional during the last century.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
The current practice of defamation law is what I would call the unconstitutional bit -- the laws passed before the constitution that weren't used (as in, just dropped off the books) afterwards wouldn't be unconstitutional, either.

edit: to clarify what I mean, doing something can be unconstitutional at any point the constitution is enforced, whatever basis the doing of it has being removed along with the finding of unconstitutionality. But the enactment, which in the case of the declaration of independence is the thing and the whole of the thing, of something before the constitution can't be unconstitutional.
 

---

Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
"Why do people even care? Do they look up to the government so much that they're afraid they'll be influenced by it?"

"How many people would actually care if a statue of Buddha was displayed in a court house?"

Would you like a real answer to these questions, or are you spouting off rhetorically?

---

quote:

---

It's the people who are trying to remove the Ten Commandments that feel like the government is imposing Christianity upon them, but these are the people that are being driven away by Christianity, because of the government. At least that's my own opinion on it. So, maybe they shouldn't try to get the Ten Commandments removed, because maybe it'll only drive people away from Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
No, but you could be more in line with the motives of people, many of which are displayed in this thread. Believing that the government shouldn't be trying to force a particular religion on people does not in fact make you a vampire.

---

quote:

---

Why do people even care? Do they look up to the government so much that they're afraid they'll be influenced by it?"

---

quote:

---

How many people would actually care if a statue of Buddha was displayed in a court house?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
I would be one who would argue to bring them out, unless they were in the context of a larger display of legal history. And it's not because I fear the government is imposing religion on me.

It's because I don't want to enter a courtroom and feel I can't get justice. If I don't believe in the first four commandments over the judge's head, and it's implied that those commandments are what he's basing his rulings on, how am I to get a fair trial?

When you walk into a courtroom the only laws that should have any impact over you are those of the United States of America. Anything that suggests otherwise is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aspectre:
Oh, I dunno. I suspect lots of people would object to having swastikas plastered all over the courtroom.

---

quote:

---

I wasn't aware that one of the questions asked to the defendent were, "Are you a Christian?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:

quote:

---

I wasn't aware that one of the questions asked to the defendent were, "Are you a Christian?"

---

There have been instances of judges ruling using their personal views of morality rather than U.S. law, yes, and they are often, but not always, overturned on appeal, which doesn't really answer your question but then I didn't understand what your question had to do with my position. If you're asking have I ever been grilled on my religious beliefs in a courtroom, I'm going to assume you're misunderstanding my point or you're being funny.

Scroll up a bit. "When you walk into a courtroom the only laws that should have any impact over you are those of the United States of America. Anything that suggests otherwise is wrong."

That's a fairly concise description of my position. To refute it, you would need to demonstrate why suggesting otherwise is beneficial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aspectre:
As a matter of fact, Mr_Megalomaniac, witnesses don't have to swear on the Bible precisely because it violates the separation of Law and religion.

And no, the suit which won that right was not brought by atheists. Jehovah'sWitness fought the former requirement because they are not allowed to swear due to a much stricter interpretation of "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."; many other Judeo-Christian-Muslim sects have equally strict interpretations, at least. Even religious sects which allow their members to swear in filed Friend-of-the-Court briefs supporting the position of Jehovah'sWitness.

Similarly, the former requirement to swear allegiance to the Flag was overturned. Lest you think that silly, many of those who were sent to Nazi concentration camps and death camps were sent because they refused to swear allegiance to Hitler due to religious reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
I answered a question about an actual event with other actual events. My response had as much -- or as little -- to do with the issue at hand as your question, I think.

As it happens, I agree that the Supreme Court should have better things to do than get rid of the Ten Commandments from courthouses. That's why I don't think they should be put there in the first place (unless they are part of a larger context), nor should the lower courts' already sensible and defensible decisions be kicked upstairs just because someone didn't like them.

---