Fidei Defensor Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 [url="http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.c...s.ap/index.html[/url] WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message. The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the conflict over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, 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. 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. Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc -- Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote. In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history. Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said. He was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. "In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be." "The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote. The case was one of two heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas. That case asks whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on the grounds outside the state capitol. The cases marked the first time since 1980 the high court tackled the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets. A broader ruling than the one rendered Monday could have determined the allowable role of religion in a wide range of public contexts, from the use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a question that has sharply divided the lower courts in recent years. But in their ruling Monday, justices chose to stick with a cautious case-by-case approach. Two Kentucky counties originally hung the copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After the ACLU filed suit, the counties modified their displays to add other documents demonstrating "America's Christian heritage," including the national motto of "In God We Trust" and a version of the Congressional Record declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible." Other cases Also Monday, the Supreme Court rejected appeals from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity. The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago -- whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources. The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering. "Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers. Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame. The Supreme Court also Monday overturned a ruling that required cable operators to open up their high-speed Internet lines to rivals. (Full story) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 ahhh.... so now I can murder (V), lie (VIII), commit adultery (VI), steal (VII), and disobey all authority (IV) in a court of law!!! I can't wait for the next time I get suppena'd... sounds like a party up in there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted June 27, 2005 Author Share Posted June 27, 2005 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 27 2005, 10:03 AM']ahhh.... so now I can murder (V), lie (VIII), commit adultery (VI), steal (VII), and disobey all authority (IV) in a court of law!!! I can't wait for the next time I get suppena'd... sounds like a party up in there... [right][snapback]625190[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggy Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 the [i]next time[/i] you get a subpoena? does it happen often? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Just Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 (edited) :angry: I want to start a war with the Supreme court. They've ruled that public prayer and school prayers were unconstitutional, they ruled that killing little babies is ok, they've ruled that our priests and pastors cant say anything regarding candidates during elections times, they ruled that religious monuments are unconstitutional . I wonder how long it will be before they rule that all crosses and crucifixes must be torn down from the top of churches. Just like they did in communist russia. That's where they are taking this country. Edited June 27, 2005 by MC Just Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 [quote name='iggy' date='Jun 27 2005, 11:05 AM']the [i]next time[/i] you get a subpoena? does it happen often? [right][snapback]625193[/snapback][/right] [/quote] lol I guess not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted June 27, 2005 Author Share Posted June 27, 2005 **Following ruling barring Ten Commandments displays in courthouses, Supreme Court rules such displays are allowed at state capitols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old_Joe Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 (edited) I am sorry to hear that. We have something similar here. The town of Plattsmouth has (I don't think it's been torn down.) a monument of the Ten Commandments in the City Park, and some guy wanted to see them removed because they were on city property. Edited June 27, 2005 by Old_Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 27 2005, 11:03 AM']ahhh.... so now I can murder (V), lie (VIII), commit adultery (VI), steal (VII), and disobey all authority (IV) in a court of law!!! I can't wait for the next time I get suppena'd... sounds like a party up in there... [right][snapback]625190[/snapback][/right] [/quote] subpoenaed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Just Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 yah know, these things werent unconstitutional when they were put in place (obviously). How are they now some how unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted June 27, 2005 Author Share Posted June 27, 2005 [quote name='Old_Joe' date='Jun 27 2005, 10:23 AM']I am sorry to hear that. We have something similar here. The town of Plattsmouth has (I don't think it's been torn down.) a monument of the Ten Commandments in the City Park, and some guy wanted to see them removed because they were on city property. [right][snapback]625210[/snapback][/right] [/quote] We have a monument here too in the park. There was a huge court battle, but in the end, the group that originally donated it just bought the piece of land that the monument is on, just the area the monument is on, so now its on private property. They put a fence around it too. So there is this tiny area with the 10 commandments in the middle of the park. Now get this - in that same park, further back, there is a beautiful monument with a small prayer invoking the name of Jesus, yet no one has had a fit over it yet.. hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 sad, my grandma even commented this country is getting closer and closer to communism. hmm the people held captive by the psycho government sounds exactly like the picture the framers had in mind when they created the thing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old_Joe Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 In Gloria Deo bookstore here, you can buy monuments like the ones mentioned for your garden or whatever. The cool thing is that on one side, it has the Ten Commandments, and on the other side it has the Beatitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 [quote name='Old_Joe' date='Jun 27 2005, 10:37 AM']In Gloria Deo bookstore here, you can buy monuments like the ones mentioned for your garden or whatever. The cool thing is that on one side, it has the Ten Commandments, and on the other side it has the Beatitudes. [right][snapback]625226[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That is very appropriate. i always thought the beatitudes go 'hand-in-hand' with the ten commandments. It seems that modern day soceity is trying to silence anyone who says anything is not "what people want to hear". As soon as you claim something that even the smallest of minorities dislike, they attempt to have it silenced even if ti is not offensive. Any escuse is good. The effect of course is that further and further we go along this path, the more we will come to ressemble the catholics of the early days, hidding in basements to practice our faith, out of sight, so that we are not 'offensive' to anyone. If you notice, almost everyone is allowed to be offended by the catholic church, but the catholic church is not allowed to be offended by anyone. Oh no, all is legal and expected when critisizing the catholic church. Almost makes you wish for Jesus' second coming at times.. I think THAT will be quite a party [i](until I get sent to purgatory, then it'll smell of elderberries, but that's another story). [/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 [quote name='iggy' date='Jun 27 2005, 10:05 AM']the [i]next time[/i] you get a subpoena? does it happen often? [right][snapback]625193[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That's what I was wondering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now