The 10 Commandments decision is due from the Supreme Court on Monday. How do you think the court will decide?


[Thread title modified for clarity - Outsports moderator]

[ July 02, 2005, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Objection! Calls for speculation!

I'll wait and see and then issue my own "advisory opinion." :cool:

Seeing as how government is not supposed to endorse any religion, the display of the 10 Commandments, which are rooted in Judaeo Christian teachings...but not in muslim or Eastern religons. This results in an endorsement of some religions but not others, therefore resulting in a governmental endorsement of some religions. Thus, the display of the tablets are unconstitutional.

Personally, I pray they go back to the actual wording of the establishment clause and rule that, while legislatures can't make laws REQUIRING the display of the 10 commandments, it is OK for a community to CHOOSE to display them.

Because then that community will also have the power to remove them.

Sigh - Too much to hope for...

Rob

I wouldn't be surprised to see a 'split' decision in this case. If I had to predict, I would say that they'd find Texas to be ok, but not Kentucky.

I think this thread needs a more specific title than "Politics and Religion."

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
We haaaave a winner! Thanks, JIP.

If a community were allowed to chosed to display the 10 Commandments on public property, the same community would be required to also show symbols of other religions otherwise, they could face lawsuits. I agree with the all or nothing rule when it comes to religions exhibitions in public spaces...preferably nothing.

We're all sitting on pins and needles.

I WAS RIGHT!!!!

U.S. Supreme Court rules Ten Commandments displays are not allowed at courthouses. Details soon.

James Dobson: phone your office.

Actually a split decision.. Can't display at KY courts but can display on grounds of Texas State House. Religious groups now claim this is a victory.

Interesting that they can be on display in Texas....hmmmm....

This decision came thru after my original "I WAS RIGHT" post.
BREAKING NEWS Following ruling barring Ten Commandments displays in courthouses, Supreme Court rules such displays are allowed at state capitols. Details soon.

Maybe they assumed with low funding for public education in TX no one could read them.

Interesting that Breyer was the swing vote that made the difference between the two cases. Also of note, Rehnquist's opinion in the TX case was only a 4-justice plurality apparently, not a majority opinion. Breyer concurred in a separate opinion.

Needless to say, we haven't heard the last on this issue.

Well, not exactly (if my law school Can Law memory serves me). In the case of religious displays, if a state legislature approves the posting of commandments on state property, it does not need to go out of its way to put up symbols of other faiths or symbols of purely secular institutions. It just can't discriminate against other religions or secular symbols in that public forum when such displays are proposed. This is most commonly seen in creche cases (Pawtucket, etc.) where the SCOTUS determined that a group could put up a Nativity scene among secular symbols of the season (Christmas tree, reindeer, Santa, wishing well, etc.).

The problem with religious displays on public land is that in the states which seem to be actively pursuing such displays (mostly Red states), the majority of the legislators and the electorate are non-diverse in terms of faith (i.e., Christians) or ideology (i.e., mostly social conservatives). This could create an atmosphere where equal treatment of non-Christian faiths or of secular displays is difficult to achieve. For example, getting a majority of state legislators in Alabama to erect 10 Commandments display on the state house grounds is fairly easy. But is hypothetical state senator Bobby Joe Smith going to ever propose a bill for the state put up a statue of, say, Ganesh in the same space or go out of his way to quickly get it through in the legislative session? Doubtful. Even if Alabama had an active minority of Hindus who wanted a statue of Ganesh on state grounds, would their voices be heard? Unlikely. Would their Ganesh be given as equally prominent a location as the 10 Commandments display? Doubtful. And that's the problem I have with religious displays on public lands. Whether through discriminatory intent or out of just plain ignorance and insensitivity, the majority usually can't see how alienating such high profile symbols are for those who are in the minority.

They had to drawn the line somewhere, to prevent a forced renovation of the Supreme Court building, which has a couple of instances of Moses and the Ten Commandments being physically carved into it . . .

Here is a link to SCOTUS' site so you can actually read the opinions in full before commenting on them. McCreary and van Orden are the two 1st Amdt cases in question.

[ June 27, 2005, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

REAL THREAD TITLE: X Commandments Decision. Agree or disagree with the author's conclusions, she is to be commended for listing some of the anomalies that make the Ten Commandments decision so objectionable to some. How some of the matters she mentions ever got funded I'll never know, and I've got a HUGE problem with their getting ANY more money while border security, prosecutors' offices and basic healthcare and educational programs go begging.

The only one of the X Commandments I have difficulty with is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ass" but thats just because the new guy next door has a cute butt.

Sigh -

Yeah , A Lot of us have problems with that one...

Of course Some of us have to worry about 10 more..

The Ten Commandments for C Programmers

1 Thou shalt run lint frequently and study its pronouncements with care, for verily its perception and judgement oft exceed thine.

2 Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end.

3 Thou shalt cast all function arguments to the expected type if they are not of that type already, even when thou art convinced that this is unnecessary, lest they take cruel vengeance upon thee when thou least expect it.

4 If thy header files fail to declare the return types of thy library functions, thou shalt declare them thyself with the most meticulous care, lest grievous harm befall thy program.

5 Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''.

6 If a function be advertised to return an error code in the event of difficulties, thou shalt check for that code, yea, even though the checks triple the size of thy code and produce aches in thy typing fingers, for if thou thinkest ``it cannot happen to me'', the gods shall surely punish thee for thy arrogance.

7 Thou shalt study thy libraries and strive not to reinvent them without cause, that thy code may be short and readable and thy days pleasant and productive.

8 Thou shalt make thy program's purpose and structure clear to thy fellow man by using the One True Brace Style, even if thou likest it not, for thy creativity is better used in solving problems than in creating beautiful new impediments to understanding.

9 Thy external identifiers shall be unique in the first six characters, though this harsh discipline be irksome and the years of its necessity stretch before thee seemingly without end, lest thou tear thy hair out and go mad on that fateful day when thou desirest to make thy program run on an old system.

10 Thou shalt foreswear, renounce, and abjure the vile heresy which claimeth that ``All the world's a VAX or a SUN'', and have no commerce with the benighted heathens who cling to this barbarous belief, that the days of thy program may be long even though the days of thy current machine be short.

by Henry Spencer

Pay attention now , for did not Spencer write...

<<CHUCKLE>>>

Rob

PS - Sorry, it was just timely for me today...

[ July 02, 2005, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]