Which begs the question, why is one OK and not the other?
Oh no! John Kerry got to them!
The The black robed justices are going to tour the country this summer, visit every courthouse, and give thumbs up and thumbs down for every display they see.
Makes about as much sense as anything else they have done recently.
Nothing's certain but Death and Texas.
I think they've made it quite plain - one is in a religious context, one in an historical context. They've been remarkably consistent about this distinction.
In short, if you want to showcase the decalogue as a foundation of US law, include other sources of the law (as the Supreme Court Building does).
Because, in their opinion not mine, one recognizes the historical importance of the Commandments to our country, the other promote religion. Pretty standard.
Good question.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1223163.html
Sounds to me a lot like: "Do as I say, not as I do."
I really am confused on this, too ...... exactly what's the difference?
The supremes (the 5) are trying to walk a political fine line. They are making it up as they go along.
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.
I believe it is because of the way the cases were argued & what was in their briefs.