Supreme Court weighs Commandments cases

Supreme Court weighs Commandments cases
76 percent of Americans support such displays, according to poll

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:39 a.m. ET March 3, 2005

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments on whether Ten Commandments displays on government property unconstitutionally entangle church and state, a cultural battle that has splintered lower courts for more than two decades.

The Bush administration, via acting Solicitor General Paul Clement, argued against a strict First Amendment wall between church and state.

Ten Commandments displays should be allowed on government property because they pay tribute to America’s religious and legal history, he argued in court. “The idea of having a fence around the Ten Commandments to make clear the state has nothing to do with it, I think that is bending it too far,” said

David Friedman, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who is challenging courthouse displays in Kentucky, countered: “An assertion that the Ten Commandments is THE source, THE foundation of our legal system ... that is simply wrapping the Ten Commandments in the flag, and that’s endorsement.”

In their comments and questions from the bench, justices were reluctant to adopt a blanket ban on such displays. They struggled to formulate a clear constitutional rule that could determine the fate of thousands of religious symbols on public property around the country, including one in their own courtroom featuring Moses holding the sacred tablets.

Justice Antonin Scalia noted that legislative proclamations and prayer invoking God’s name are permissible. “I don’t see why the one is good and the other is bad,” he said.

the rest

 

Not even Bob Beamon made that kind of leap.

 

i'd love to see this settled, but i'm not sure i'd like how this court would settle it.

i think there's a big difference between a historical display and a display about history.

i also don't personally believe the 10 commandments is all that relevent to american law. certainly no more than is roman law or british law and probably a whole lot less.

 

Agreed.

I would tend to lean in the direction that the safe interpretation would be to ban the 10 Commandments altogether. Hard to get past the first one...

 

i find it a bit amusing that the same people who say stuff like "god doesn't meant the christian god" when trying to defray criticism from gov't use of the word god will also be some of the first ones to point out that our nation was based on christian values and attempt to make the case that mosaic law is the seed of us law. seems like trying have your cake and eat it, too.

 

Your godly Christian neighbors are going to stone you for that comment... and I don't mean have you smoke a fattie.

 

All this hubbub over a stupid graven image.

 

Way too close to the truth, there, bud.

 

Well, in this case you would certainly be on very firm footing since the God giving the Commandmants was the "Jewish" God....

I give to you these 15 *bam* ummm.. 10, 10 Commandments!

Serious question for hb - if Jesus started things with a clean slate, how come the 10 Commandments would even be that big of a deal for Christians?