Posted on 06/27/2005 8:25:49 AM PDT by Pikamax
Apparently, the rationale is that in one case the Commandments are displayed as one part of the "historical tapestry" of American law, while in the other case the Commandments are displayed as the basis of American law.
The underlying principle is clear. American law is not based on divine law (which in this case is divine law which conforms to the natural law). It's up for grabs.
Stupis court, Stupid people.
It seems to be a rather arbitrary "standard". I don't see any state establishment of religion in either case.
Well, no, that is not really it.
Why? The one in Texas *STOOD ALONE* and anybody would realize it did not have a non-religious purpose.
Here is what Rehnquist said about Texas:
?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.
--
The difference is that though the Texas case obviously had a religious purpose, it was not as much of the purpose as the one in Kentucky. It also served other purposes in Texas...historical reasons etc.
Kentucky was overtly more religious, and they only added the other documents when the courts got involved.
Of course, any Ten Commandments displays, whatever the purpose, are fine.
After all, our country gave tax money to build churches and send missionaries to Indians.
But, our Supreme Court today is screwed up.
the difference was that they did that only as an afterthought to try to comply with the courts.
Of course, the weird thing is tha the Texas display was NOT a historical display, but yet was upheld.
Odd.
Scalia said in his dissent very strongly that the court has NOT been consistent on the matter.
You know more than Scalia?
Yup, according to the Supremes each had some contribution to make to the foundation of our laws.
I'm just the messenger. But that's what they've said.
A quick look at Wikipedia tells us that the Napoleonic Code is considered the first successful codification of a legal code and strongly influenced the law of many other countries. Dunno about Mohammed.
However, the Supreme Court and its ACLU handlers will not neglect their sworn duty to persecute Christians when necessary.
"It's all just a part of this rich tapestry we call life." (What I say to my young daughter when she poses a question I can't answer.)
On a related note, the local university put on a very enjoyable Christmas pageant at the end of the year, until a few years ago. Santa showed up in a sled, short speeches, singing, and so forth. Townspeople, faculty and students showed up with their children: all the Whos in Whoville.
Due to craven administrators frightened by the ACLU and the SCOTUS, now it's a politically correct "Seasonal Peace Celebration" sparsely attended by high-ranking administrators and a few student government types.
I wish some conservative group would beard the SCOTUS lions in their own den: "Hey, isn't that the Ten Commandments I spy with my little eye?"
Oh, please. Let's not get into this. Have you *always* agreed with every decision of Scalia?
We can disagree without playing the "You know more than _______" card.
I don't believe that any of the Supremes are infallible.
The new "test" is geographical. LOL
Seems more like a dishonest way to be "incluuuuuuuusive" at any cost.
Santa is not a religious figure. He's a secular one, and there's no ratio in which a secular figure "neutralizes" a religious one.
"Secular" and "religious" are not antonyms. "Secular" means "not pertaining to religion."
You need to talk about Jewish and Muslim iconography if you're going to talk about neutral depiction of religious displays. Neutral depiction means that no one faith is promoted above any other. "Secular" doesn't enter into it.
You are so right. This is just another gradual slide into secularism and into Socialism. The Supreme Court has been studying European Law and applying it to the US Law for far to long. With the eminent retirements of more than just one of the Supremes, the ability of the President to influence the destiny of this country cannot be more profound.
If Bush is a TRUE Patriotic American it should be very evident in his choices and the Republican Congress MUST overide the minority filibusters and install those Judges into the Court.
If his choices are anything less, they will sail through with no problems.
SCOTUS cannot make legal sense of their own hypocrisy which is why they must review these on a "case-by-case" basis.
If we are to have this "wall of separation", it needs to be complete.
* Sandblast all references to God, Christ and The Creator in our historical buildings and monuments.
* Remove "In God We Trust" from our currency.
* Remove all crosses and stars of David from national cemetaries.
* Remove the phrase "Under God" from the "Pledge of Allegiance".
* Forbid chaplains form our Congress and our military.
* Forbid city, county, state and federal employees from getting paid time off for Christmas, Thanksgiving or Easter as holidays.
* Forbid churches and other places of religious influence from being used as polling places.
* Forbid the use of the Bible in swearing in ceremonies and oath-taking ceremonies as well as the phrase "so help me, God".
If the goal of the Supreme Court is a godless society where people of religion are second-class citizens, they should just declare it so and be done with it. If this wall of separation truly does exist (and I am confident the authors of the Constitution envisioned no such wall), then just go all out and end the debate forever.
If that *isn't* what they want, then they should should declare this "wall of separation" business a judicial mistake and repeal it. The law is hypocritical and ludicrous the way it stands today.
Yes it is.
Right next to Confucius, Mohammed and Napolean. Which the Supreme Courts have said means it's okay. If the states did that, there would be no Constitutional issue.
Oh. I see. But what I'm seeing makes me cross-eyed. the criteria keeps shifting, but only the shifty five know the mysterious reasons why. Sandra, PLEASE resign.
The majority 5 are a bunch of liberal p*ssies. But CYA seems to be the way of the world now...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.