12-10-2004 19:32									#1
	SCOTUS will consider Ten Commandements Case! Increase the size of your Attachments

The US Supreme Court will hear a case about the constitutionality of displaying the 10 Commandements in government buildings.

This could be real big!

------------------
High Court to Decide Ten Commandments Issue

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court (search) said Tuesday it will take up the constitutionality of Ten Commandments (search) displays on government land and buildings, a surprise announcement that puts justices in the middle of a politically sensitive issue.

Justices have repeatedly refused to revisit issues raised by their 1980 decision that banned the posting of copies of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

In the meantime, lower courts have reached a hodgepodge of conflicting rulings that allow displays in some instances but not in others.

The high court will hear an appeal early next year involving displays in Kentucky and Texas.

In the Texas case, the justices will decide if a Ten Commandments monument on the state Capitol grounds is an unconstitutional attempt to establish state-sponsored religion.

A homeless man, Thomas Van Orden (search), lost his lawsuit to have the 6-foot tall red granite removed. The Fraternal Order of Eagles (search) donated the monument to the state in 1961. The group gave scores of similar monuments to American towns during the 1950s and '60s, and those have been the subject of multiple court fights.

Separately, they will consider whether a lower court wrongly barred the posting of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses.

McCreary and Pulaski county officials hung framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses and later added other documents, such as the Magna Charter and Declaration of Independence, after the display was challenged.

The Ten Commandments contain both religious and secular directives, including the familiar proscriptions on stealing, killing and adultery. The Bible says God gave the list to Moses.

The Constitution bars any state "establishment" of religion. That means the government cannot promote religion in general, or favor one faith over another.

The lawyer for the Kentucky counties, Mathew Staver of the conservative law group Liberty Counsel (search), told justices that lower courts are fractured on the issue. A divided appeals court panel sided with the American Civil Liberties Union (search) in the Kentucky case.

In the past decade, justices have refused to get involved in Ten Commandments disputes from around the country. Three conservative justices complained in 2001, when the court declined to rule on the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display in front of the Elkhart, Ind., Municipal Building.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said the city sought to reflect the cultural, historical and legal significance of the commandments. Rehnquist noted that justices' own chambers includes a carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

The cases are Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500 and McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.
-----------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135165,00.html

	12-10-2004 19:41									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The court is probably sick of the hodgepodge of lower court rulings and wants to affirmatively reaffirm its 1980 decision. I can only see 3 justices who'd say it was ok.

	12-10-2004 19:46									#3
	Put an end to popups!

It should be allowed. I think the Supreme court will find it ok to keep them there. Apparently it's ok to show religious symbols in this country now just so long as it's not Christian. Muslims I think I'll start an organization called Atheists against Islam and the ACLU.

	12-10-2004 20:15									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The court is probably sick of the hodgepodge of lower court rulings and wants to affirmatively reaffirm its 1980 decision. I can only see 3 justices who'd say it was ok.

As the article notes, the Supreme Court itself has a carving of Moses and the 10 Commandements. How can SCOTUS say that government buildings cannot display the 10 commandements while they and other federal buildings do?

This decision could be far reaching. It seems to me that you either allow the display of the 10 commandements or you ban it from every single government building across the land. And you cannot be selective either. Either all religious symbols are allowed or none. You cannot ban the 10 Commandements and allow muslim symbols for example.

	12-10-2004 20:18									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: the Supreme Court itself has a carving of Moses and the 10 Commandements. How can SCOTUS say that government buildings cannot display the 10 commandements while they and other federal buildings do?

Because it doesn't have a place of prominence. It is displayed on equal footing with other sources of law, such as Hammurabi's code, etc. If it is placed with other historical law sources, then it's ok. Then it is for historical bases. However, if it is given preeminence, then it can't stand. That indicates that the 10 Commandments is being used by the judge/principal to make a decision.

The intent matters.

	12-10-2004 20:19									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat As the article notes, the Supreme Court itself has a carving of Moses and the 10 Commandements. How can SCOTUS say that government buildings cannot display the 10 commandements while they and other federal buildings do?

Judges don't decide on the decoration of buildings. This is how it can happen.

EDIT: I'll keep the first part of this post because I'm no DanS but it's clear that Imran's post is more useful to this debate.

	12-10-2004 20:27									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MalevolentLight It should be allowed. I think the Supreme court will find it ok to keep them there. Apparently it's ok to show religious symbols in this country now just so long as it's not Christian. Muslims I think I'll start an organization called Atheists against Islam and the ACLU.

Nobody's trying to grandstand on a monument to the Five Pillars of Islam in the courthouse rotunda.

	12-10-2004 20:31									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The Court is going to have to make some fine distinctions about what kind of displays are acceptable and what kind are not, otherwise it is going to have to do major reconstruction on its own ediface.

	12-10-2004 20:33									#9
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Uh oh, do I see something like a headscarf ban in public schools on it's way in the United States?

	12-10-2004 20:35									#10
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I think some people haven't read the 1980 decision (ie, the distinction has been made). Go back to it.

	12-10-2004 20:36									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph Uh oh, do I see something like a headscarf ban in public schools on it's way in the United States?

Now, wouldn't that be a twist? Oppression of religion is what is the First Amendment really means?

	12-10-2004 21:05									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph Uh oh, do I see something like a headscarf ban in public schools on it's way in the United States?

Doubtful, SR. Ned actually has a point here. A headscarf ban, or analog, goes straight to individual behavior and religious observation. I don't even think Ashcroft would touch that is his wettest dreams.

	12-10-2004 22:42									#13
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Unless Congress voted for the Ten Commandments, I don't really see how any Federal Court has ANY jurisdiction. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the judicial rewriteing of the constitution that has been going on the last few decades.

	12-10-2004 22:45									#14
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Um... 1st Amendment, Plato? That usually suffices for jurisdiction .

	12-10-2004 22:57									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Um... 1st Amendment, Plato? That usually suffices for jurisdiction .

Oh! You mean this one?

quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As I said...Unless CONGRESS voted for the ten commandments, how is it a Constitutional Issue? I can tell you how...The courts OF THEIR OWN VOLITION said so. Which, of course, is judicial legislation and is WRONG.

	12-10-2004 23:02									#16
	Tired of ads?

Woo-hoo! Onward, Christian stormtroopers, er, soldiers!

Bah. If they allow the display of the Ten Commandments in every public place, then I'm going to crusade (heh) for every other Tom, Dick and Harry religious group to join the Christians in plastering their religious edicts all over the place. And I mean *every* group. I'd like to see how tolerant folks are then.

Gatekeeper

	12-10-2004 23:07									#17
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper Woo-hoo! Onward, Christian stormtroopers, er, soldiers! Bah. If they allow the display of the Ten Commandments in every public place, then I'm going to crusade (heh) for every other Tom, Dick and Harry religious group to join the Christians in plastering their religious edicts all over the place. And I mean *every* group. I'd like to see how tolerant folks are then. Gatekeeper

I'm okay with that. My post is not a pro-religious post...it is an anti-federal government involvement post. If the people of Community "A" want a Muslim crecent...then they should have it. If the people of community "B" want the Ten Commandments...they should have it. However, neithier should interfere with the application of law in the courtroom.

This simply isn't a federal issue...and really wasn't until Burger decided that the Supremes were a legislative branch of government as well as judicial.

	12-10-2004 23:16									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by PLATO As I said...Unless CONGRESS voted for the ten commandments, how is it a Constitutional Issue?

I thought that the Constitution applied to state law as well as federal law (in other words, the whole "popular sovereignty" or "ordinance of nullification" business was technically settled awhile back). Or are you arguing that it would be perfectly legal for, say, the Illinois legislature to ban Islam within Illinois borders? If not, then why would one part of the amendment ("prohibiting the free exercise thereof") apply to the states while another part of the amendment ("respecting an establishment of religion") doesn't?

	12-10-2004 23:32									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Article IV, Section 2:

quote: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

So the Illinois example would not hold.

And again from the 1st Amendment:

quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Which would cover Islam not being made illegal nationally.


The argument that I am making is that the federal court has no jurisdiction over any of the symbols that a State may choose to display. It does, however have jurisdiction over the equal application of the law. My contention is that it would be legal to display the Ten Commandments, but not to make a legal judgement based upon them.

	13-10-2004 02:23									#20
	Support Apolyton

I'd say, it depends on whether you can read the Commandments or not. Remember, the Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religions each have their own version of the 10 Commandments. Link

The courthouse where I work has a Moses on it, along with a Magna Carta baron and an American Revolutionary. I have no problem with it because it's obviously a historical setting, explaining to early origins of our laws. But I do have a problem with attempt to cram the inevitably Protestant version of the Commandments down the throats of citizens.

Attachment: courthouse.jpg
This has been downloaded 79 time(s).

	13-10-2004 02:26									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat As the article notes, the Supreme Court itself has a carving of Moses and the 10 Commandements. How can SCOTUS say that government buildings cannot display the 10 commandements while they and other federal buildings do?

Because it's a piece of national historical architecture, and anyone who actually decided to put it there is long gone?

	13-10-2004 02:28									#22
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by PLATO As I said...Unless CONGRESS voted for the ten commandments, how is it a Constitutional Issue? I can tell you how...The courts OF THEIR OWN VOLITION said so. Which, of course, is judicial legislation and is WRONG.

The Congress = the whole government interpretation of the 1st amendment has been around for a long time. Do you really want to see it gone?

	13-10-2004 02:31									#23
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by loinburger I thought that the Constitution applied to state law as well as federal law (in other words, the whole "popular sovereignty" or "ordinance of nullification" business was technically settled awhile back). Or are you arguing that it would be perfectly legal for, say, the Illinois legislature to ban Islam within Illinois borders? If not, then why would one part of the amendment ("prohibiting the free exercise thereof") apply to the states while another part of the amendment ("respecting an establishment of religion") doesn't?

Most of the amendments in the Bill of Right begin: "Congress shall make no law . . ." Originally, those rights were restricted only to federal statutes.

But the 14th Amendment has since been interpreted to extend most of the Bill of Rights to the several states. Imran can probably give you a more coherent explanation than I can.

	13-10-2004 02:46									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Originally posted by The diplomat As the article notes, the Supreme Court itself has a carving of Moses and the 10 Commandements. How can SCOTUS say that government buildings cannot display the 10 commandements while they and other federal buildings do? Because it's a piece of national historical architecture, and anyone who actually decided to put it there is long gone?

So basically the 10 Commandments are ok as long as they don't mean anything?

How are some people so opposed to the 10C? Why are people afraid of religion? So the 10C say that you should obey God, not kill, not steal, not commit adultery etc, what's the big deal? Nobody is forcing you to obey the commandements.

	13-10-2004 02:48									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat So basically the 10 Commandments are ok as long as they don't mean anything?

Yes.

quote: How are some people so opposed to the 10C? Why are people afraid of religion? So the 10C say that you should obey God, not kill, not steal, not commit adultery etc, what's the big deal? Nobody is forcing you to obey the commandements.

The government is paying for it with their tax money, and when the judges themselves push to have it put up, that's a pretty clear sign that they are intending to play favorites.

	13-10-2004 02:49									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Wow, if they allow Christian symbols on public property, next they will allow displays of Pagan gods as well!! OMG!

	13-10-2004 02:50									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

?

	13-10-2004 02:53									#28
	Increase Your PM Length

I'm in favor of removing such religious symbols as the Ten Commandments from government property for two reasons:

1) Such prohibition does not interfere with one's own religious freedom.

2) The government is not suppose to endorse/support one religion over another.

	13-10-2004 02:57									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat So basically the 10 Commandments are ok as long as they don't mean anything?

They're okay as long as they're not given preeminence over other origins of law, as Imran said.

quote: Why are people afraid of religion?

I'm not afraid of religion, I'm afraid of some the people practicing it.

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker The government is paying for it with their tax money

The 10C in the Moore case were a donation.

	13-10-2004 02:58									#30
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I'm definately opposed to removing it from such buildings as the Supreme Court. That's part of our national history. It'd be like white-outing "in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven" from the original copy of the Constitution.