WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed on government property goes before the Supreme Court Wednesday, in a pair of potentially landmark cases that test religion's cultural and legal status in American society.
The justices will consider whether displaying the ancient text represents state endorsement of religion, or simply recognizes and reflects the role that code has played in U.S. moral and legal traditions.
The Decalogue, as it is also known, forms a pillar of belief in Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
"These are cases courts like the least; they stir raw emotions," said Charles Haynes, a religious liberty expert at the First Amendment Center. "Whatever they decide will be misunderstood; I don't think any side will be happy with the result. Even the winning side loses because of the deep divisions that will result."
Two cases will be heard, one from Texas, the other from Kentucky. Federal and state courts have been at odds for years over the issue, which gives the high court an opportunity to issue a definitive ruling.
In the Kentucky case, two county executives separately posted copies of the King James version of the Ten Commandments on the walls of their courthouses.
They were displayed among 11 frames of privately donated historical documents and symbols that helped form the basis of American law and government, including the Declaration of Independence. All but the Ten Commandments were secular in nature.
The American Civil Liberties Union objected and won at the federal appeals level. The counties then asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
Sidenote:pwo said:In these cases there is no law stating that these courthouses must have up the ten comandments, they do so because they chose to. They souldn't use tax money to post it up, but it's not like it is a statue that we are talking about. How much does it cost to have someone xerox the ten comandments them buy a nice frame to put it up? I'm sure that they could get plenty of private donations.
Are you talking about Marsh V Chambers? That was interesting SCOTUS decision that stated that it was constitutional for the Nebraska State legislature to pay a chaplain to perform a prayer at the beginning of each session. It wasn't decided based on church v. state, but more to the fact that this was an entrenched tradition since near the beginnings of the country.pwo said:The supreme court decided that it was okay for state legislatures to pray before they go in session. They decided this because the legislators were old enough not to be influenced by others religion. It is the same for the court, except for juvenile everyone that goes into court is old enough to make the decision for themselves. Just because it is there doesn't mean that you have to bow to it and worship.
The problem inherent with the Ten Commandments is that they don't necessarily reflect laws that the United States holds true. Murdering a person is illegal, but what about if they're entering your house about to cause you harm, killing that person has been determined to be legal. Even if it does go against one of the Commandments. As far as I know, there aren't any laws on worshipping a false idol either.pwo said:And what about the status quo. The status quo is also known as common law which is law based on past traditions that have been pased down throught the centuries. For ex.: we all know that killing a person is not legal.
Much of what is common law is derived from the ten commandmets and other past legal documents.
On the frieze of the Supreme Court is etched the history of lawmakers. Included in this frieze is Moses with the Ten Commandments. Also on the frieze are Confucius, Solon, and of course, The Tortoise and the Hare.pwo said:The ten commandments are almost as much a part of american tradition as they are a part of christianity, judaism, or islam. And those religions have to make up for about 85% of the US population. The ten commandment don't hurt anyone or establish any religion. Keep 'em on the wall.
And here's the full opinion, the part that I find really germane is this:Question Presented
Does the chaplaincy practice of the Nebraska legislature violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Conclusion
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court upheld the chaplaincy practice. In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger abandoned the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, which had been the touchstone for cases involving the Establishment Clause. In its place, Burger rested the Court's opinion on historical custom. Prayers by tax-supported legislative chaplains could be traced to the First Continental Congress and to the First Congress that framed the Bill of Rights. As a consequence, the chaplaincy practice had become "part of the fabric of our society." In such circumstances, an invocation for Divine guidance is not an establishment of religion. "It is," wrote Burger, "simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."
No more is Nebraska's practice of over a century, consistent with two centuries of national practice, to be cast aside. It can hardly be thought that in the same week Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment for submission to the states, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), it would be incongruous to interpret that Clause as imposing more stringent [463 U.S. 783, 791] First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government.
This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged. We conclude that legislative prayer presents no more potential for establishment than the provision of school transportation, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), beneficial grants for higher education, Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971), or tax exemptions for religious organizations, Walz, supra.
OK, then we can just say the death penalty could be construed to go against the Ten Commandments directly (and out of context too). Stealing is definitely against the law (and I can't think of any exceptions that are really germane). But then some of these Commandments don't really fit:As for self defense killing, people don't even get let off easy for that anymore, you have to prove that it was the only thing to do to save yourself. What about thou shall not steal?
One could then argue that that would be better accomplished with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.pwo said:Come on, we can't just have like six commandments posted up in a court room. That would just look stupid. Also, it's not just the actual commandments, it is also about the meaning behind them: We have rules that we must follow.
pwo said:Are the commandments a graven image of something in heaven? No, they are from something God made on Earth. Come on, you think god doesn't want any crucifixes or nativity scences. What about bible's are those okay?
that and something called the constitution...but meh, whatever.argexpat said:You forgot the rest of the Commandment: "...or that is on the Earth beneath."
There should be no bibles or religious iconography of any kind, anywhere, because we should be worshiping God, not bric-a-brac.
The ten commandments do have some moral credence that could be afforded to them. They also have a limited religious scope in their contents as well. Morality has been debated before and after them. As such, our morals and mores are an amalgam of religion, philosophy, and culture. Acknowledging this as well as other things is fine, but the 10 Commandments are not the end all be all of morality. If they were, would you have needed Jesus' teachings or the New Testament at all?satinloveslibs said:Do you believe the ten commandments are good things to base morals off of? What else will we use instead?
You, of course, are entitled to hold any opinion you wish. However, if you are interested in knowing the Catholic teaching with respect to the First Commandment, look here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htmargexpat said:You forgot the rest of the Commandment: "...or that is on the Earth beneath."
There should be no bibles or religious iconography of any kind, anywhere, because we should be worshiping God, not bric-a-brac.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?