Court rules Ten Commandments can stay at Capitol

Ft. Worth Star-Telegram/AP ^ | 11/13/03 | AP

[ppaul]

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7254764.htm

	Posted on Thu, Nov. 13, 2003
	Court rules Ten Commandments can stay at Capitol Associated Press AUSTIN - The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the state's position that the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds is not an unconstitutional attempt to establish state-sponsored religion. Thomas Van Orden, a homeless man living in Austin, had sued to have the monument removed, calling it an endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs by the state government. The state countered that the 6-foot tall red granite monument is more historical than religious, with key segments of law founded on the moral and cultural ethics provided by the commandments. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott applauded Wednesday's appeals court ruling. "The Ten Commandments are undoubtedly a sacred religious text, but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture," Abbott said Thursday. "The Texas monument has stood for over 40 years, and the court's decision affirms that the monument is entirely consistent with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution." The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the monument to the state in 1961.

---

[ppaul]

Thanks for that document.

[Aquamarine]

That's why I voted for him.

Maybe he'll run for the Senate next time.

[jwalsh07]

No problem, Some text from the decision.

The guiding principle is government neutrality toward religion in the sense that a state cannot favor religion over non-religion or one religion over another. Yet neutrality is not self-defining. It does not demand that the state be blind to the pervasive presence of strongly held views about religion with myriad faiths and doctrines. Nor could it do so. Religion and government cannot be ruthlessly separated without encountering other First Amendment constraints, including its guaranty of the free exercise of religion.

Such hostility toward religion is not only not required; it is proscribed.9 Justice Kennedy’s observation in Allegheny bears emphasis: it is not the case that the Establishment Clause is so inelastic as to not “permit government some latitude in recognizing and accommodating the central role religion plays in our society.”10

It is equally important to remember Justice Goldberg’s famous observation: Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion. . . .11

It is now time for Scalia to put the stake through the heart of Lemon once and for all. Kennedy will probably side with Scalia, the only question is what will Madame O'Connor of European more precedetn fame do????

[Not_Who_U_Think]

Could this be the 'event' Judge Moore referred to in his recent diciplinary hearing?

[jwalsh07]

Now what? :-}

[jwalsh07]

Sorry, I don't know.

[Servant of the 9]

Guess all the Justice Roy Moore bashers are full of sh*t after all!

No, Mr. Moorer insisted he was placing it because it was the religious basis of our country and that was what was prohibited.
The Federal Circuit Court was clear on that.

If he had placed it, as the Texas copy was placed, as "a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture" it could have stayed.

It was not the Ten Commandments that were prohibited, but the Ten Commandments placed for religious reasons.

So9

[Texas_Jarhead]

alright!

[jwalsh07]

A worthless argument if ever there was one. The Ten Commnadments is both inherently religious and at the same time historical. The two can not be separated. Read the decision, your claim that religion must be total separated from the church is at odds with the 5th Circuits opinion.

On to the Kings and Queens of America for the royal decision!

[Servant of the 9]

A worthless argument if ever there was one. The Ten Commnadments is both inherently religious and at the same time historical.

Yes, it is both, but the issue is what Mr. Moore claimed as the reason he placed it. That is what got him busted, his big mouth.

So9

[jwalsh07]

I thought you might be interested.

[jws3sticks]

Not for a second. It is a done deal, get the rock out of the court house, get rid of the AL Chief Judge. All done. Just a quip, not a biggie.

[The Man]

What got Roy Moore busted was that he deliberately flouted a valid order of a federal court.

[July 4th]

Yup. This is heading to SCOTUS. We're developing quite a split in the circuits.

[xzins]

HLL, you've gotta admit that the contradictory logic is maddening. One monument OK, another monument not OK.

"God save the court" is OK. "In God we Trust" is OK.

In your heart, you know that these decisions defy balancing on the head of a pin.

[Gumption]

When you're only capable of see one side of an issue it's pretty easy to make a decision isn't it?

[sirchtruth]

It was not the Ten Commandments that were prohibited, but the Ten Commandments placed for religious reasons.

I don't understand this. Judge Moore has insisted the 10 commandments are the underpinning of our law in the U.S., they are religious period.

It is perposterous that a precept can not be religious and at the same time be used judiciously as a basis for law. Just because the man points out that they are religious and are a basis for our law he gets banned by a bunch of skewed thinking irreligious zealots...

[Gumption]

seeing

[Torie]

The constitutional law on separation of church and state is a mess, and I suspect always will be. There simply is no overarching bright line test available that I know of by which one can separate what is really not a state endorsement of a particular religon, or religions, or religion in general perhaps, from that which really is. Moreover, references to religion are simply too entrenched in our culture, and have a long historical pedigree.

The constitutional test for church/state separation is and will remain one of sort of like the test for pornography - one knows it when one sees it. The test was a will remain highly fact dependent, and therefore ideosyncratic. In that regard, the courts will continue to try to parse motive (here the motive by way of some rather tortured analysis was found to be secular and benign), an exercise which is typically a rather unsatisfactory point of departure in this realm.

SCOTUS won't take this case, or any other like it, I suspect, for a very long time, until there is a clearer and more profound disagreement between the circuits as to some more generalized application of law that SCOTUS can sink its teeth into. By the way, your point of view that the first amendment is limited to a proscription of the establishment of a state religion, has long since been rejected by SCOTUS, and will continue to be. That approach is a legal corpse that will not be reanimnated.

What SCOTUS will continue to wrestle with are applications where government fiscal appropriations are involved, such as with schools, government subsidies of faith based charities, and the like.

That is my take of the matter anyway.

This opinion invalid to the extent it is wrong.

[jwalsh07]

Yes, it is both, but the issue is what Mr. Moore claimed as the reason he placed it.

The motive for placing the Ten Commandments at any public institution is the same. They represent the Christian/Judeo history of this nation. The decalogue is God's commandments. There's no getting around that.

The only question remaining is which way 5 human beings vote in Washington DC. Something not quite right about that.