Court Splits on 10 Commandments Displays (ALLOWED at state capitols)

[gauguin57]

Edited with new breaking news (AP) headline... so, commandments CAN BE POSTED at state capitol buildings, but NOT at courthouses? I do not get this.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_TEN_COMMANDMENTS?SITE=JRC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-06-27-11-20-40

Court Splits on Ten Commandments Displays

By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer


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 closely-watched cases, the high court said 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 promotin of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.

In that 5-4 ruling and another ruling, 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 5-4.

In a stinging dissent to the ruling involving Kentucky's courthouse exhibits, Justice Antonin Scalia declared: "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."

[aden_nak]

1. What the fuck is wrong with the SCOTUS this past month?

[zara]

33. your post is ambiguous. is your anger supportive or against?..

perhaps rather than cussing them out, you'd be better to explain to list what your point is?

[aden_nak]

45. They've just ushered through a rash of rulings I can't agree with.

The eminent domain item, this backpedaled "It's not OK in a courtroom but it is OK in a state-sponsored building." routine. . . Coming on the heels of the partially liberal-sponsored eminent domain ruling that just came out, I'm beginning to wonder if we can even trust them for moderate amounts of sanity.

P.S. It is generally unwise to expect anything useful or productive from me before lunch. ;)

[wakeme2008]

2. From the CNN site

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.

IMHO a little wiggle room but not a lot.

[Roland99]

6. The South Courtroom Frieze:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8a.htm

The Courtroom friezes were designed by sculptor Adolph Weinman. These friezes are located well above the courtroom bench, on all four walls. The South and North wall friezes form a group that depicts a procession of 18 important lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, St. Louis, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon. Moses is holding blank tablets. The Moses figure is no larger or more important than any other lawgiver. Again, there is nothing here to suggest and special connection between the 10 Commandments and American law.

The Curator's office makes the following comments on Weinman's North and South frieze sculptures:

Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law (p. 2, emphasis ours).

Plus, this from Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

[wakeme2008]

9. Right a little wiggle room but not a lot

it could not be the ONLY one at a court house.

[markus]

42. Plus, it musn't contain the 10 Commandments

Just a picture of a long haired, beared guy in a robe holding two tablets. (I think I have a picture of my avatar, Leon Russell, holding a couple of tabs of something. That might qualify).

But the 10 Commandments don't appear at SCOTUS: Moses holding two tablets is there.

[renaissanceguy]

3. I'm curious what their explanation will be.

Either you ban all of them, or none... They are religious symbols on government property.



http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/428793

[KoKo]

30. I think it was "existing" displays on Court House grounds. A

CNN Law commentator said that "new" displays would be challenged in the courts. But, that old displays could be considered "historical" if they had been there for many years.

It seemed a fair ruling, to me. Doesn't mean that folks won't sue to build new monuments to the Ten Commandments but that they left it open for the States to challenge any new commitments. :shrug:

[K-W]

34. The article explained thier logic.

Simply the existence of a display with religious content does not prove unconstitutional violation, it depends on the specifics of the display and how much the display amounts to the promotion of religion.

[gauguin57]

4. So, the two decisions seem to make no sense together!

So, NO commandments at courthouses, but it's OK to post commandments on STATE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY? WHAT?????

Fundies celebrating on the steps of the SCOTUS.

[Mari333]

5. I. E., if you want the protestant version of the 10 cs on state property

you HAVE to allow all other religious symbols, and dictates, to be displayed also..that includes the catholic version of the 10 cs, the jewish version of the 10 cs, an atheist manifesto, the koran, the satanists bible, the wiccan rede, etc etc etc..its going to be messy on statehouse sites...

[gauguin57]

12. Yes, I'm looking forward to the atheist and Satanic manifestos

on state capitol grounds. That will be interesting. That'll make the Fundies flip!

[mom cat]

24. I want a bronze broomstick at the Massachusetts State Capitol.

Seriously, I think we should have something at the Massachusetts State Capitol to honor the true religion of all of the witches who were massacred in this state! Alongside that monument should be another to honor the religion of the Native Americans who are also massacred here! If anyone tries to get the 10 Commandments enshrined on Beacon Hill they are going to have a fight on their hands.

[VegasWolf]

37. Let's just turn a cross upside down. nt

[Zhade]

47. Of course, there ARE no atheist manifestos.

NT!

[sam sarrha]

7. this is just the beginning.. Link> to the Bu$h state Religion..LINK>

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

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052805A.shtml

http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafia

they have to have a state church to police us..

it is an essential element in Fascism
http://www.indybay.org/print.php?id=1719333

they only have a few years to to do in, they will lose the majority so they have to steam-Roll it on us quickly..

[VegasWolf]

38. Isn't "religious tolerence" an oxymoron? nt

[realcountrymusic]

8. Dumb, distracting, culture-war divisive issue

Am I the only one who thinks "oh great, another right wing talking point to whip up outrage?" Religion is being institutionalized and established in much more intrusive and less ignorable ways all over the place in this country. I can take pleasure in the momentary angst this will cause the fundie base which will now roar mightily, possibly to Shrub's detriment, during the next SC appointment (there have been stories suggesting the Neocons would like the fundies to plesae remain quiet through the fight, which now seems unlikely). But it drives me insane that this is what our national civic debate is about. I am willing to overlook the 10 commandments. They're not a bad set of rules, and it helps point out how our current regime violates nearly every one of them. As long as we can post the Torah and the Hadith, or whatever. Make no mistake, I am an atheistic no good lefty bastard, but I can smell a smokescreen when I'm in one.

[Roland99]

11. Ayup. Political capital is spent on these wedge issues that affect NO ONE!

In the meantime, just under 50 million people, 50 MILLION people, are without healthcare coverage and millions and millions are living at or below poverty-level wages.


Oh, but the economy is doing great!

[Politicub]

14. Don't wring your hands too much

You need those digits to type. The right is going to hate us no matter what. I celebrate the victories without giving a moments credence to what the right may think. Fuck them. They are nothing but whiners. If they get a victory, it is never enough.

[sam sarrha]

10. so i can demand to build the 40 ft buring golden torch to Ahura Mazda

:woohoo:

[Tux]

15. Well

I heard a group wanted to make a statue larger than the Statue of Liberty that depicts Buddha. I think D.C. could use some ole time Enlightenment.

[sam sarrha]

23. i'd move there it help build it...!!!

[gauguin57]

13. Kicking for new headline, more info

This is going to cause one big mess.

[Roland99]

16. Now, what about witnesses having to swear on a BIBLE in court?

When can we get THAT process eliminated?

[patcox2]

17. You don't have to.

done long ago.

[Roland99]

18. But shouldn't it be removed completely?

[patcox2]

20. Why? If it works.

Look at it this way, if it has the effect of making the person on the stand more likely to tell the truth, because he or she believes it would be very bad to swear on the bible and then lie, than I am all for it.

Courts are very careful about it, too; if someone wants to just affirm that they wil tell the truth, its not like they come at them with a bible and they have to wave it off.


Where I practice law, you really rarely see a bible used. Its just the acknowledgment that they are speaking under penalty of perjury that is used most often.

[Roland99]

21. Guess it might depend on the area of the country.

[Roland99]

19. Judges question use of Quran in taking oath

http://www.news-record.com/news/local/quran_061905_online.htm

An AOC lawyer's preliminary opinion last week said that state law allows people to be sworn in using a Quran rather than a Bible, Ellis said. But that conflicts with the view of top Guilford County judges, who told officials with the Islamic center Friday that they won't allow the practice in their courtrooms.

"An oath on the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law," Guilford Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright said earlier in the week. He sets policy for the county's nine Superior Court courtrooms.

<...>

Muslims, and anyone else who may object to swearing on the Bible, have other options to taking an oath. They can raise their hand and give an affirmation to tell the truth, which is treated the same by law.

<...>

Last year a district judge who presided in counties including Davidson and Iredell asked court officials to remove references to God when he entered the courtroom or during oaths. The chief justice of the state Supreme Court called Judge James M. Honeycutt's decision "deplorable," and the court eventually ordered him to reverse his policy.

[hippiechick]

22. What I don't understand is ...

... uhmmm ... The 10 Commandments as 'a historical document' ?

Last time I checked, the Bible was pretty much still FICTION, or at the very most, "he said-she said-they said" and not verifiable history.

So why's anything Bible related being displayed as part of a historical display of ANY kind ?

:shrug:

[seriousstan]

26. The 10 Commandments are a historical document.

It has existed in a steady form for thousands of years. It has been written down for thousands of years. The fact that the Bible is/isn't fiction does not play into the fact that the ten commandments exist. The Bible could be written by Aesop and the ten commandments would still be a historical document.

[hippiechick]

32. History - to me - needs to be FACT BASED.

And the Bible qualifies as mythology along with all the other 'came into being' stories around the world.

But that's JMHO.

[seriousstan]

36. You are confused, the Bible is a historic book because of it's age and

influence. It is debatable if it is a book OF history. It is not debatable that it is historic. The 10 Commandments is a historic document for the same reason. There is no claim as to whether God handed the tablet to Moses. The claim is that they have existed in a relatively stable form for thousands of years and have influenced people and the law.

[Zhade]

49. It is a book that is historic by virtue of its very existence...

...but is not a book containing actual history.

Good way to put it.

[0rganism]

41. No, the "10 commandments" are not a historical document

There is no "steady form" that has existed for thousands of years. As others have noted on this thread, the various religious denominations do not agree upon which of the Laws of Moses constitute the 10 commandments. It would be unsound hermeneutics to consider "the 10 commandments" to be an historical document without greater clarity regarding what the 10 commandments actually are -- but we cannot have a definitive statement on this topic precisely because these interpretations arise from different religious traditions!

[Zhade]

48. THANK you.

No offense to believers intended, but there is little "historical context" for many, many aspects of many faiths.

[The Doctor.]

25. Just heard OxyRush claim that liberals are happy about

these rulings.

'The liberals are thrilled about the SC's property rights ruling... they couldn't be happier.'

[K-W]

35. This was a lose lose situation for liberals from the start.

If the court allows the development siezure it means state/business corruption continues, but if the court had blocked the development it would have produced precendent reducing the scope of eminant domain, which plays into conservative attempts to make private property soveriegn.

One would need a crystal ball to know which precedent is going to hurt the country more in the future, but it is a choice the court and its liberals should never have had to make because the real judicial crime here is the rulings throught US history that have empowered and personified wealth to the point where today they control many facets of the state and can use the powers the constitution grants to people's government to serve an oligarchy of the wealthy.

[Guaranteed]

27. They said it was allowed in Texas because it was part of a historical

display.

[RSchewe]

28. I see this as a plus...

I personally was more concerned with the Commandments in court houses. This will probably drive all of the radical right nuts.

[Catfight]

31. you can't drive the radical right, nuts, they are considered, radical

right wing nuts. It goes hand in hand. It's redundant.

[SeanQuinn]

29. I'm very happy with the ruling.

Why? Well, as a Christian, I do believe that the Ten Commandments DID pass from God to Moses, and I think that if shown with other historical documents, like the Code of Hammurabi and some early legal codes, it serves its purpose.

I also agree with the ruling that if they are highlighted, they pass the line of church-and-state. For the first time in a long time, good call, SCOTUS.

[VegasWolf]

40. That's your choice. I prefer the Anasazi origin stories - where

"Our stories were us, what we knew, where we came from and where we were going. They were told to remind of us of our responsibility, to instruct, and to entertain. There were stories of the Creation, our travels, our laws. There were legends of hard-fought battles, funny anecdotes - some from the smokehouse, some from the trickster - and there were scary stories to remind us of danger, spiritual and otherwise.

Stories were our life and they still are."

These stories are a hell of a lot more interesting than burning
bushes.

[really annoyed]

44. Good For You

I have mixed feelings about the ruling. I still find it odd that we treat the Ten Commandments as fact and not religious belief.

[SeanQuinn]

46. I think there's no doubt, regardless of your beliefs...

that you can admit that the commandments at least based some form of law. May it be that they could have influenced late Roman law or during the time of Feudalism when the Roman Catholic Church ruled the known world or even when our Constitution was written.

Though, I think for a seperation, the commandments need to be shown with other documents that have been basis for laws.

[Zhade]

50. Feel free to believe that, but you cannot prove it happened.

As such, it is NOT historical. Thus, it violates the ruling.

[OKthatsIT]

39. What penalty will be demanded when its desacrated

Would it be defined as govt property?

[really annoyed]

43. Good ruling for the general public

AP-Ipsos poll on whether the Ten should be posted.

76 percent support it and 23 percent oppose it.

Americans United was happy too.

"Americans United for Separation of Church and State says today's Supreme Court decisions on display of religious symbols by government reaffirms the important principle that the state may not promote religion."

"This is a mixed verdict, but on balance it's a win for separation of religion and government," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "The court rejected calls by Religious Right legal groups to give government an unfettered right to display religious symbols. The justices wisely refused to jettison long-standing church-state safeguards." (au.org)

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

51. Time to travel to Red States & demand for Torah & Koran monuments

The SCOTUS decision regarding legislative building display of 10 Commandments monumnents highlighted the notion of "context" and having the display among other representative monuments. So, it's time to fight to have other non-Christian monuments placed in these legislative buildings where the 10 Commandments are being displayed. Nothing will piss off this christofascists more than having to pass by a monument celebrating the Torah, Book of Mormon, or Koran on the way to their beloved 10 Commandments.

I can't wait for this "Rapture," so we can actually do something constructive in this country and the world. Good riddance, I say.

JB