Breaking news....
The Supreme Court has ruled Ten Commandments displays are not allowed in courthouses.
Supreme Court has ruled Ten Commandments....
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
Skywatch_NC
- Category 5
- Posts: 10949
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:31 pm
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Contact:
-
JerryG
-
earthquake~weather
- Tropical Low
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:34 pm
-
swimaster20
- Category 1
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:41 pm
- Location: The Heart of Cajun Country
-
HurriCat
Good decision? How does turning our backs on God rate as "good"? And don't start with "Separation of Church and State". There is not one word in the U.S. CONSTITUTION about gutting all mention of God from our government and public areas. The Constitution was written, signed and prayed-over by God-fearing men! What IS there, is that the government shall not ESTABLISH a religion. Ahem! As in "Church of England". THIS is why there is no "Church of the United States of America". READ the Constitution, and the writings of our founding fathers, then make a case if you can.
0 likes
-
JerryG
HurriCat wrote:Good decision? How does turning our backs on God rate as "good"? And don't start with "Separation of Church and State". There is not one word in the U.S. CONSTITUTION about gutting all mention of God from our government and public areas. The Constitution was written, signed and prayed-over by God-fearing men! What IS there, is that the government shall not ESTABLISH a religion. Ahem! As in "Church of England". THIS is why there is no "Church of the United States of America". READ the Constitution, and the writings of our founding fathers, then make a case if you can.
Separation is a concept culled from the Constitution.
I agree with it wholeheartedly and am comforted by the fact that I will not be subjected to aggressive sanctioning displays of Christianity.
0 likes
-
JerryG
-
vbhoutex
- Storm2k Executive
- Posts: 29114
- Age: 73
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:31 pm
- Location: Cypress, TX
- Contact:
JerryG wrote:Looks like they are allowed on Govt Property but NOT in Courthouses......Looking forward to reading the opinion
Does anyone understand the difference here? Last I checked Courthouses were Govcernment property. I have not read the decision, but I would guess they outlawed the displays inside a courthouse, but not outside the same?
0 likes
-
Stephanie
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23843
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
- Location: Glassboro, NJ
vbhoutex wrote:JerryG wrote:Looks like they are allowed on Govt Property but NOT in Courthouses......Looking forward to reading the opinion
Does anyone understand the difference here? Last I checked Courthouses were Govcernment property. I have not read the decision, but I would guess they outlawed the displays inside a courthouse, but not outside the same?
I don't understand the difference.
0 likes
They can make someone swear on the Bible "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" before giving testimony, but you can't have the Ten Commandments in the court house. Go figure
Last edited by sunny on Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
-
earthquake~weather
- Tropical Low
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:34 pm
I think it has less to do with the actual location of the display (indoor vs. outdoor) than it does with the intent of the body who put it there. IF you read the decision by Justice Souter (http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1693P.ZO.pdf), its clear that the Court felt that the intent of the two counties in question was to evangelize, and it is that intent that crosses the line of neutrality. The full text decision for the Texas case is not online yet that I know of....but I assume that the age of the monument and its history as well as its location were all factors in allowing it to stay (the Kentucky displays were posted in 1999, well after the "culture war" over religious symbols was underway).
So we really are right where we began .....religious symbols with clear historical and educational significance are allowed on public grounds; sectarian displays erected by moralizing figures in the name of "the public good" are not. Seems fair enough to me ... it allows our rich religious history to be preserved without allowing public figures (whose salaries we all pay) to shove foreign religions down anyone's throat.
So we really are right where we began .....religious symbols with clear historical and educational significance are allowed on public grounds; sectarian displays erected by moralizing figures in the name of "the public good" are not. Seems fair enough to me ... it allows our rich religious history to be preserved without allowing public figures (whose salaries we all pay) to shove foreign religions down anyone's throat.
0 likes
-
mf_dolphin
- Category 5
- Posts: 17758
- Age: 68
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: St Petersburg, FL
- Contact:
earthquake~weather wrote:I think it has less to do with the actual location of the display (indoor vs. outdoor) than it does with the intent of the body who put it there. IF you read the decision by Justice Souter (http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1693P.ZO.pdf), its clear that the Court felt that the intent of the two counties in question was to evangelize, and it is that intent that crosses the line of neutrality. The full text decision for the Texas case is not online yet that I know of....but I assume that the age of the monument and its history as well as its location were all factors in allowing it to stay (the Kentucky displays were posted in 1999, well after the "culture war" over religious symbols was underway).
So we really are right where we began .....religious symbols with clear historical and educational significance are allowed on public grounds; sectarian displays erected by moralizing figures in the name of "the public good" are not. Seems fair enough to me ... it allows our rich religious history to be preserved without allowing public figures (whose salaries we all pay) to shove foreign religions down anyone's throat.
That's the way I take the decisions as well. The intent of the display seems to be the difference....
0 likes
-
TexasStooge
- Category 5
- Posts: 38127
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:22 pm
- Location: Irving (Dallas County), TX
- Contact:
Texas Commandments display OK
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. 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 once 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.
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. 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 once 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.
0 likes
-
JerryG
earthquake~weather wrote:I think it has less to do with the actual location of the display (indoor vs. outdoor) than it does with the intent of the body who put it there. IF you read the decision by Justice Souter (http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1693P.ZO.pdf), its clear that the Court felt that the intent of the two counties in question was to evangelize, and it is that intent that crosses the line of neutrality. The full text decision for the Texas case is not online yet that I know of....but I assume that the age of the monument and its history as well as its location were all factors in allowing it to stay (the Kentucky displays were posted in 1999, well after the "culture war" over religious symbols was underway).
So we really are right where we began .....religious symbols with clear historical and educational significance are allowed on public grounds; sectarian displays erected by moralizing figures in the name of "the public good" are not. Seems fair enough to me ... it allows our rich religious history to be preserved without allowing public figures (whose salaries we all pay) to shove foreign religions down anyone's throat.
good post...I agree.
0 likes
-
vbhoutex
- Storm2k Executive
- Posts: 29114
- Age: 73
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:31 pm
- Location: Cypress, TX
- Contact:
mf_dolphin wrote:earthquake~weather wrote:I think it has less to do with the actual location of the display (indoor vs. outdoor) than it does with the intent of the body who put it there. IF you read the decision by Justice Souter (http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1693P.ZO.pdf), its clear that the Court felt that the intent of the two counties in question was to evangelize, and it is that intent that crosses the line of neutrality. The full text decision for the Texas case is not online yet that I know of....but I assume that the age of the monument and its history as well as its location were all factors in allowing it to stay (the Kentucky displays were posted in 1999, well after the "culture war" over religious symbols was underway).
So we really are right where we began .....religious symbols with clear historical and educational significance are allowed on public grounds; sectarian displays erected by moralizing figures in the name of "the public good" are not. Seems fair enough to me ... it allows our rich religious history to be preserved without allowing public figures (whose salaries we all pay) to shove foreign religions down anyone's throat.
That's the way I take the decisions as well. The intent of the display seems to be the difference....
As I said I haven't had time to read the decision. Does it basically state the "rules" under which the intent is determined? Sounds like it could be left to someone who could lean either way to make those determinations.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests