Supreme Court rejects Ten Commandments at courthouses (1 Viewer)

[shuamort]

Justices reject Ten Commandments at courthouses

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Kentucky cannot display framed copies of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses.

More

Justices left legal wiggle room, 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

 

[jpwright]

I think it's a whole lot of complaining about something so insignificant. Either way, I suppose having them down is better than having them up.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Justices reject Ten Commandments at courthouses

More

What are we going to about the Ten Commandments displayed at all other courthouses, including the Supreme Court? Especially when in many cases they are engraved into the building itself...? What are we going to do about all the Crosses at Arlington National Cemetery? Or, how about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, where it states that here lies a soldier known but to God? Are we going to stop the president from saying "so help me God" at the conclusion of being sworn into office?

 

[shuamort]

What are we going to about the Ten Commandments displayed at all other courthouses, including the Supreme Court? Especially when in many cases they are engraved into the building itself...? What are we going to do about all the Crosses at Arlington National Cemetery? Or, how about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, where it states that here lies a soldier known but to God? Are we going to stop the president from saying "so help me God" at the conclusion of being sworn into office?

Read the second paragraph again in my post:

Justices left legal wiggle room, 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

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Read the second paragraph again in my post:

How is one considered more neutral than the other? I see another inconsistency in the application of the law.

 

[shuamort]

Here's more detailed info:

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.

 

[Montalban]

Here's more detailed info:

Are the courts/government going to remove other religious symbols as well?

The statue of Justice, often seen around courthouses is pagan (it is a woman blindfolded, holding a sword in one hand and scales in the other).

 

[shuamort]

Are the courts/government going to remove other religious symbols as well?

The statue of Justice, often seen around courthouses is pagan (it is a woman blindfolded, holding a sword in one hand and scales in the other).

Themis? She falls under the ruling about the Texas 10 Commandments.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Are we going to stop the president from saying "so help me God" at the conclusion of being sworn into office?

What would happen if you elected an atheist, or other non-Christian president? (I won't be holding my breath!).

 

[Montalban]

Themis? She falls under the ruling about the Texas 10 Commandments.

Why wasn't the goddess of justice an issue unto itself?

Seems to me that there's a bit of anti-Judeo-Christian stuff going on here.

To me I find it rather selective application of the separation of church and state issue, because the government will pay for crosses to be attached to graves in national cemetaries, and it would seem to me that they are thus supporting, if not endorsing the religion of their dead.

Many US State flags bear the symbols of Christianity. Crosses such as "St Andrews Cross" on some southern states. Three different crosses on the Hawaiian state flag. Do these flags fly/hang in courts?

 

[Montalban]

Nor am I. It was a big deal when a catholic got elected.

JFK; and he was shot dead! You may have elected a single Catholic, but he didn't even make it to full term!

Smith, who ran for President in the 1920s (I think it was then), was a Catholic and it was a much bigger deal then.

 

[shuamort]

Why wasn't the goddess of justice an issue unto itself?

Seems to me that there's a bit of anti-Judeo-Christian stuff going on here.

Before you keep going on, did you read the opinions?

 

[Montalban]

Before you keep going on, did you read the opinions?

Admittedly no, which link is relevant to the pagans?

I've had a look at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700462.html

“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 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.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8375948/

This to me is quite confusing, becuase some things are recognised as religious, but stay, others are religious, but must go.

 

[shuamort]

Admittedly no, which link is relevant to the pagans?

Here ya go
(I'd copy the relevant parts, but it's in pdf form, Grr).

 

[shuamort]

In sum, we are persuaded that Texas does not violate the First Amendment by retaining a forty-two-year-old display of the decalogue. The Ten Commandments monument is part of a display of seventeen monuments, all located on grounds registered as a historical landmark, and it is carefully located between the Supreme Court Building and the Capitol Building housing the legislative and executive branches of government. We are not persuaded that a reasonable viewer touring the Capitol and its grounds, informed of its history and its placement, would conclude that the State is endorsing the religious rather than the secular message of the decalogue.

 

[Montalban]

Here ya go
(I'd copy the relevant parts, but it's in pdf form, Grr).

The only mention of the word pagan was...
In support of this proposition, the Torcaso Court quoted James Iredell,
who in the course of debating the adoption of the Federal Constitution
in North Carolina, stated: “ ‘it is objected that the people of America
may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and
that Pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is
it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle
of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?’ ”
367 U. S., at 495, n. 10 (quoting 4 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State
Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 197 (1836
ed.)).

Did you have something more specific a reference in mind; or are you hopeful that it's there?

 

[Montalban]

In sum, we are persuaded that Texas does not violate the First Amendment by retaining a forty-two-year-old display of the decalogue. The Ten Commandments monument is part of a display of seventeen monuments, all located on grounds registered as a historical landmark, and it is carefully located between the Supreme Court Building and the Capitol Building housing the legislative and executive branches of government. We are not persuaded that a reasonable viewer touring the Capitol and its grounds, informed of its history and its placement, would conclude that the State is endorsing the religious rather than the secular message of the decalogue.

Excellent, that makes more sense. Thanks for the info.

I guess then the numerous crosses on grave-stones, which the Fed government may have paid for, and up-keeps, are not 'religious' ?

 

[shuamort]

The only mention of the word pagan was...
Did you have something more specific a reference in mind; or are you hopeful that it's there?

It's not direct, it's indirect. Read the opinion. There's the difference between symbology of Themis vs. the promotion of ancient greek mythology as a state religion. There's a difference between the state of Texas promoting the decagogue and displaying it as the symbology of it.

 

[Montalban]

It's not direct, it's indirect. Read the opinion. There's the difference between symbology of Themis vs. the promotion of ancient greek mythology as a state religion. There's a difference between the state of Texas promoting the decagogue and displaying it as the symbology of it.

We're out of sync in our posts, because I've already responded to your generous reference.

Thanks.

It's the different time zone (?) or the fact that they say that Australians and Americans are divided by a common language.

 

[shuamort]

Excellent, that makes more sense. Thanks for the info.

I guess then the numerous crosses on grave-stones, which the Fed government may have paid for, and up-keeps, are not 'religious' ?

They are and they are not. LOL. Just like the 10 Commandments, they're religious, but the government is not pushing the religion. It's a very fine line.

 

[Montalban]

They are and they are not. LOL. Just like the 10 Commandments, they're religious, but the government is not pushing the religion. It's a very fine line.

I think it's an attempt at the court to please everyone, and end up pleasing no one

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Excellent, that makes more sense. Thanks for the info.

I guess then the numerous crosses on grave-stones, which the Fed government may have paid for, and up-keeps, are not 'religious' ?

In that case, the government is not promoting or endorsing a religious believe, but rather it is respecting the religious belief of the individual that grave monument was provided for. For example, if you are Jewish, you don’t get a cross.

 

[Montalban]

In that case, the government is not promoting or endorsing a religious believe, but rather it is respecting the religious belief of the individual that grave monument was provided for. For example, if you are Jewish, you don’t get a cross.

Why should they recognise the religion of the individual at all?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Why should they recognise the religion of the individual at all?

Because, there is a big difference between recognizing the religious beliefs of say a fallen soldier, and using government as a tool to promote and endorse a specific religious belief. In fact, it could be argued that if the government did not did not recognize the religious beliefs of a fallen soldier, that the government could be construed as endorsing and promoting atheism.