Ten Commandments before Supreme Court

[SuperJerk 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.t...ents/index.html

 

Ten Commandments before high court

Explosive church-state issues from Kentucky, Texas

By Bill Mears

CNN Washington Bureau

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The issue of 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 commandments 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They were displayed among 11 frames of privately donated historical documents and symbols that helped form the basis of American law and government, including the Declaration of Independence.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.

 

In Texas, Thomas Van Orden, a self-described "religious pluralist," filed suit against the placement, with private funds, of a 6-foot-tall monument on the grounds of Austin's Capitol Building in 1961. It bears the words "Ten Commandments," a star of David, a symbol representing Christ and the words "I am the Lord thy God."

 

Van Orden says that, in allowing the monument, Texas crossed the line separating church and state by promoting "personal religious beliefs."

 

In a brief, he contends many religions reject the idea of a single God who lays down rules for human behavior.

 

"Even among religions that accept the Ten Commandments, there are significant differences in content of each religion's version of the Ten Commandments, said Van Orden. "The Texas Ten Commandments is virtually identical to the Protestant version."

 

He lost in a federal appeals court and petitioned to the Supreme Court. Opposing him is Texas governor Rick Perry.

 

The Bush administration and 26 state attorneys general filed a brief with the court supporting the Texas and Kentucky displays. No states publicly oppose it.

 

"The First Amendment was never intended to remove all religious expression from the public square," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said. "There is no doubt the Ten Commandments are a sacred religious text, but neither can we deny their significant impact on the history, culture and laws of Texas and the rest of the country."

 

CNN poll: Most questioned show support

Last week, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found 76 percent of those questioned said they support the Ten Commandments being displayed at the Texas Capitol.

 

Twenty-one percent of those surveyed said they were opposed. The poll had a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4.5 percentage points.

 

Within U.S. religious groups, however, there is little consensus.

 

Few Christian organizations have spoken out. The National Council of Churches said differences within its membership kept the group from taking a position. The Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention have been largely silent.

 

Orthodox Jewish groups filed a brief with the court supporting the displays in principle. But Reform branch leaders, along with the Anti-Defamation League, oppose it.

 

Muslim leaders in the United States have issued no statements on the issue.

 

But public interest groups have weighed in.

 

"Thou shalt not merge religion and government," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "Promoting religion is the job of houses of worship, not government. Our legal system especially must avoid even the appearance of bias on the basis of religion."

 

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion." The Supreme Court has long interpreted that to mean government actions must have a secular purpose.

 

The court has tread carefully on the issue. It ruled in 1980 that the Ten Commandments could not be posted in public school classrooms.

 

And in October, the justices refused to accept an appeal from former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. He was removed from office in November 2003 after refusing a federal judge's order to remove a 2.6-ton granite monument bearing the Ten Commandments from the state court building.

 

The pervasiveness of the Ten Commandments is evident in the Supreme Court building itself. Inside the courtroom is a series of marble friezes that include not only Confucius, Mohammed and secular figures associated with law, but Moses holding the tablets, without text. The justices can see them from the bench simply by looking up.

 

The cases being argued are Van Orden v. Perry (03-1500) and McCreary County, KY et al. v. ACLU (03-1693). Rulings are expected by the end of June.

 

Does displaying the Ten Commandments (including "Thou shall have no other gods before me" and "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy") constitute the government establishing, or respecting an establishment of, a religion?

 

Or is it simply a display of a culturally significant list of ancient laws?

 

If so, why do people feel so strongly about displaying them?

[Jingus 0]

People feel so strongly about it because they represent the Judeo-Christian religions, plain and simple. The staunch believers don't want their faith trampled on, while the angry atheists get pissed off at even the most tenuous example of the government supporting one religion over another.

 

After reading the article a couple of times, is it just me, or did it seem to suggest that the monument in question in Texas didn't even have the commandments on it at all, but just the words "The Ten Commandments"?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

People get offended at stupid shit like this because they don't have anything else to worry about, such as finding their next meal...

[Jingus 0]

Actually kkk, you're more right than you know. I just saw a TV news story on the Texas case (yes the monument includes the actual commandments), and the guy who filed the suit was an unemployed & homeless ex-lawyer who spent his days hanging out in the local public law library, and was apparently offended at having to walk his reeking body past that monument every day.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Aren't there more important issues at hand than dealing with stuff like this?

 

Oh wait, that would imply people aren't petty.

 

Seriously, our judicial system was based in part on the 10 commandments. What are we going to do next, tell Plymouth to not display displays on the Puritans because they're religious too?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Sort of depends on the context of the piece, as we saw with Roy Moore.

 

Anyway, I'm honestly suprised the state government doesn't just try to sell a small piece of property containing the commandments to various local churches just to get it out of their hands without a huge mess.

 

Then again, maybe that could be scary because if the wrong church buys it, they may take advantage of that property to put other, more embarassing messages like "STEERS NOT QUEERS" and nothing could be done about it.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Actually kkk, you're more right than you know...

Ha, I heard about that douche. He was homeless due to a bout with depression or something. Guess this is raising his self-esteem.

 

Only thing I hate more than a Jesus freak are those assholes that get offended at the slightest mention of God...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Actually kkk, you're more right than you know...

Ha, I heard about that douche. He was homeless due to a bout with depression or something. Guess this is raising his self-esteem.

 

Only thing I hate more than a Jesus freak are those assholes that get offended at the slightest mention of God...

ditto

[Lightning Flik 0]

Now I'm just curious. The supreme court has all those figures who contributed to the laws and likely have a saying or two of what they are, but Moses has the 10 Commendant Tablets without words on it? May I just ask why that is? I mean, they were pretty much the first real laws that were created. Regardless if they were apart of a religion, they also a part of US laws right? So shouldn't it be able to be placed up in courts? But not taken in as religious context, but only law context?

 

Someone explain this whole non-sense to the confusied.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I'm curious. If instead of the Ten Commandments, had Hammurabi's Code been erected instead, would anybody be complaining? I don't care either way, but isn't their more important things to fighting about.

[2GOLD 0]

Just list them only simplify them.

 

Instead of "Thou shalt not kill"

switch to

"Don't kill, that would be bad"

 

Cut out the words "THE TEN COMMANDENTS", switch up their position, simple them up and no one would care or notice.

 

This should be a dead issue. Don't cheat on your wife, don't steal and don't kill. What's the problem?

[NoCalMike 0]

On one hand I don't really care and don't see a point in wasting any energy on this debate. On the other hand, I guess the people against this monument are thinking that since the ten commandments are not official laws, they don't belong on the court or public property. I mean would it be acceptable for a judge to display a passage from the satanic bible? Would people walk by it every day and not care? Probably not, and I would imagine there would be an uproar. No matter how much some want to argue about how we come from judeo-christian values or what-not, the ten commandments are not OFFICIAL LAW, so IMO if you allow a monument or statues of them on public property and/or courthouses, then you are opening the door for even more statues and monuments for other various groups to bitch at. If I want to look at a statue of the ten commandments, I will go to church, if I want to see the bill of rights and the constitution in action, I will attend a trial or go to a courthouse. There is STILL a difference.

[SuperJerk 0]

I can understand saying the Ten Commandments can be displayed on the grounds of historical purposes, but some of the other arguments that are being used are just wrong.

 

I also think roughly half the people who responded to this thread completely missed the point. Its not an issue whether or not people are offended by religious displays, its a question of whether or not displaying religious text on government property implies sponsorship of religion. Government sponsorship of religion is clearly illegal, and has led to some serious problems in other countries throughout history.

 

 

I mean, they were pretty much the first real laws that were created. Regardless if they were apart of a religion, they also a part of US laws right?

 

Only four of the Ten Commandments are part of the law in the U.S.

 

-Thou shall not kill.

-Thou shall not commit adultery.

-Thou shall not steal.

-Thou shall not bear false witness.

 

"Thou shall not commit adultery" isn't even so much against the law as it is grounds for divorce, and "bear false witness" is only against the law if it is done in court or in legal documents.

 

The rest of the Commandments are definitely NOT against the law, and coveting your neighbor's property is even encouraged to some degree.

 

Cut out the words "THE TEN COMMANDENTS", switch up their position, simple them up and no one would care or notice.

ARE YOU KIDDING?

 

Do you REALLY THINK that no one would object to a sign on government property that says "Thous shall have no others gods before me" or "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"?

 

Some of you who are defending the displaying of the Ten Commandments don't even seem to know what's actually in them.

Edited March 2, 2005 by RobotJerk

[Twisted Intestine 0]

I don't understand.. So it's against the law for the government to support a religion?

 

Wouldn't Bush saying "God bless America" constitute supporting religion?

[NoCalMike 0]

Only four of the Ten Commandments are part of the law in the U.S. 

 

-Thou shall not kill.

-Thou shall not commit adultery.

-Thou shall not steal.

-Thou shall not bear false witness.

 

"Thou shall not commit adultery" isn't even so much against the law as it is grounds for divorce, and "bear false witness" is only against the law if it is done in court or in legal documents.

 

The rest of the Commandments are definitely NOT against the law, and coveting your neighbor's property is even encouraged to some degree.

 

 

ARE YOU KIDDING?

 

Do you REALLY THINK that no one would object to a sign on government property that says "Thous shall have no others gods before me" or "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"? 

 

Some of you who are defending the displaying of the Ten Commandments don't even seem to know what's actually in them.

...and that right there would be my main issue with the public display of them in front of a courthouse. They are not all laws. It is almost asking to be questioned about being biased in hearing cases in where the suspect broke a "commandment" but not a law, where would the judges religious precidence leave his overall feeling. Not to say most judges even think like that, but it would still raise questions and open up so many cans of worms.

[SuperJerk 0]

Wouldn't Bush saying "God bless America" constitute supporting religion?

If it was ever challenged, Bush saying "God bless America" would probably be protected because he's stating his own personal religious view, rather than officially mandating that all Americans must believe in God. Likewise, Congress begins sessions with a prayer, but it can be argued that it is merely members of the Congress observing a tradition at the request of its members, rather than endorsing religion (although why they need to do it at taxpayer expense has never been explained).

 

I suspect than many things that the government does might be found unconstitutional if it ever was seriously challenged in court. For example, the challenge to the words "under God" was thrown out of court not because the complaint was judged invalid, but because the Supreme Court said the person didn't have the right to sue the government on behalf of his child. "In God We Trust" being on money is plainly a violation of the First Amendment, but no one challenges it. School prayer led by teachers and administrators was ruled unconstitutional some time ago.

 

I just saw a TV news story on the Texas case (yes the monument includes the actual commandments), and the guy who filed the suit was an unemployed & homeless ex-lawyer who spent his days hanging out in the local public law library, and was apparently offended at having to walk his reeking body past that monument every day.

 

Maybe instead of attacking the person making the argument you should stop to consider that he might be right. Having no life doesn't automatically make you wrong. Trying to invalidate someone's view based on their personal traits rather than the merits of their argument is not logical.

[Hektik 0]

Does anybody else think the original 10 amendments in the bill of rights would be much more appropriate to display on government property?

[Justice 0]

I suspect than many things that the government does might be found unconstitutional if it ever was seriously challenged in court. For example, the challenge to the words "under God" was thrown out of court not because the complaint was judged invalid, but because the Supreme Court said the person didn't have the right to sue the government on behalf of his child. "In God We Trust" being on money is plainly a violation of the First Amendment, but no one challenges it. School prayer led by teachers and administrators was ruled unconstitutional some time ago.

I would doubt stuff like that would, in all honesty. The problem is the specific sponsoring of a religion, which can't be the shown through a mere reference to God. God can mean any number of things and isn't religion-specific, so therefore it's arguable that vague references like that aren't under scrutiny.

 

And it's people trying to change dumb things like that that make it that much harder.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

It was mentioned on NPR today (not the most objective source in the world, I know, but still worth considering) that a large number of the various 10 Commandments monuments around were originally established by Cecil B. Demille for the sole purpose of advertising his movie. Just to put some of them into context.

[Guest BDC]

I suspect than many things that the government does might be found unconstitutional if it ever was seriously challenged in court. For example, the challenge to the words "under God" was thrown out of court not because the complaint was judged invalid, but because the Supreme Court said the person didn't have the right to sue the government on behalf of his child. "In God We Trust" being on money is plainly a violation of the First Amendment, but no one challenges it. School prayer led by teachers and administrators was ruled unconstitutional some time ago.

 

Madelene Murray O'Hare (sp?) tried to challenge on some of those things. The Court refused to hear them on the basis that they were trivial matters.

[Guest MikeSC]

I just saw a TV news story on the Texas case (yes the monument includes the actual commandments), and the guy who filed the suit was an unemployed & homeless ex-lawyer who spent his days hanging out in the local public law library, and was apparently offended at having to walk his reeking body past that monument every day.

 

Maybe instead of attacking the person making the argument you should stop to consider that he might be right. Having no life doesn't automatically make you wrong. Trying to invalidate someone's view based on their personal traits rather than the merits of their argument is not logical.

What the man has done is decided to use his rights as a weapon to attack others, rather than as a shield to protect himself.

 

It's shit like this that leads to nursing schools having to deal with deaf students trying to become nurses --- nevermind that they can't actually DO the job since a lot of hospital equipment uses sound to alert of major problems.

 

I say sue him for wasting the people's time.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Does anybody else think the original 10 amendments in the bill of rights would be much more appropriate to display on government property?

I think posting the second amendment in public places would get commie libs even more enraged than the posting the 10 commandments -- I say go for it...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I don't understand.. So it's against the law for the government to support a religion?

 

Wouldn't Bush saying "God bless America" constitute supporting religion?

Nope. He's a citizen like anyone else and has a right to his own personal beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if he's a fuckin' nutbar about them.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Does anybody else think the original 10 amendments in the bill of rights would be much more appropriate to display on government property?

I think posting the second amendment in public places would get commie libs even more enraged than the posting the 10 commandments -- I say go for it...

Maybe some, but since it is the Constitution and not the 10 Commandments I doubt there would be too much of a fuss considering it IS the law of the land afterall. Without a religious connotation attached any complaints would fall on deaf ears since it doesn't amount to much of a news story.

 

If religious people want to have displays somewhere else I wouldn't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with religions as long as it stays out of politics and government.

 

 

Besides, you can call me a commie lib all you want, but I own 3 handguns and a .22 rifle. 2nd Hurrah!

[SuperJerk 0]

The problem is the specific sponsoring of a religion, which can't be the shown through a mere reference to God. God can mean any number of things and isn't religion-specific, so therefore it's arguable that vague references like that aren't under scrutiny.

Using "God" means that you support the monotheism, which is a religious viewpoint.

 

What the man has done is decided to use his rights as a weapon to attack others, rather than as a shield to protect himself.

 

How is this an attack on others?

He's attacking the people's right to use government property to promote their religious views...which is right that doesn't exist.

 

If a monument to the Ten Commandments was erected for historical purposes, I say fine. But if that is the real reason for erecting it, then I doubt everyone would be getting so upset at the thought of removing them.

 

Using public property to promote your religious views, which is what this guy thinks they have done, is clearly illegal.

 

I think posting the second amendment in public places would get commie libs even more enraged than the posting the 10 commandments -- I say go for it...

 

I think someone also needs to post the FIRST Amendment. Especially the part that says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Problem is putting the 10 Commandments on pubic ground isn't "establishing" a religion. Of course now we're running in circles, so I'll just let the Supreme Court do their thing and screw up this country even more than it already is...

[Jingus 0]

Is the guy who filed the lawsuit right? Technically, yes he is. Having the foundation of Christian laws in a monument on public ground is a violation of the separation of church & state.

 

HOWever, do I care about it? Fuck no. We've got much more important problems to spend our time, effort, and money on than fixing some damn rock with words on it.

[Justice 0]

The problem is the specific sponsoring of a religion, which can't be the shown through a mere reference to God. God can mean any number of things and isn't religion-specific, so therefore it's arguable that vague references like that aren't under scrutiny.

Using "God" means that you support the monotheism, which is a religious viewpoint.

No, that's a group of religions, not one specific one. Monotheism in itself isn't a religion, but a tenent of some religious beliefs. If we are going by a 'religious viewpoint', then no God is also up for that. It doesn't work, does it? Catholicism is a religion, monotheism is a concept. Doesn't work the same.

[Special K 0]

Ok, ok, you got us. The Ten Commandments have absolutely nothing to do with Judaism and Christianity.

[Justice 0]

Ok, ok, you got us. The Ten Commandments have absolutely nothing to do with Judaism and Christianity.

Eh, the 10 Commandments is very specific in terms of what it really is. God, well... God is a fairly ambigious concept when it comes down to it all.