SCOTUS to Decide Ten Commandments Issue

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-10-12 10:48am

This ought to be interesting. I sincerlely hope that it does not prove to be a giant step backward.

High Court to Decide Ten Commandments Issue

Given that forty percent of the ten commandments are instructions on how to worship Yahweh, I have to say I don't think they really belong in government court buildings in a country that officially forbids the government establishing a state religion. I believe though, that the SCOTUS chamber has them displayed on the wall. I wonder if ruling against the 10 commandments will cause them to redecorate their courtroom.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-10-12 11:01am

The ten commandments in the supreme court don't actually have the commandments on them IIRC. In addition, they're part of a engraving showing a general overview of the western tradition of law. The problem with many TC supporters is that they want the TC prominently displayed, on their own.

ReinnResauq · Post by **ReinnResauq** » 2004-10-12 11:05am

With the same stupid-ass republican judges that put the shrub into office in the first place, I wouldn't be surprised if they say it's ok. We're in such a religious civil rights era.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-12 11:21am

This is pretty cut and dry. SCOTUS should strike it down in fairly short order and add one more piece of precedent to the establishment clause's pile.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-12 12:19pm

Wow, this could either be very good, or very bad...

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-12 01:36pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Wow, this could either be very good, or very bad...

yes, yes it could

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-12 02:52pm

So far, this court has a passable record on making sure the Fundie Hordes don't rip apart the constitution. But I can hardly wait to see Bush's reaction if they do uphold the Constitution and give the Commandments the boot they deserve.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-12 03:14pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Wow, this could either be very good, or very bad...
yes, yes it could

I suppose this is the part where you tell us all that the Christian god has a divine right to going hand-in-hand with government irrospective of whether or not everyone believes in him.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-12 03:24pm

The Kernel wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Wow, this could either be very good, or very bad...
yes, yes it could

I suppose this is the part where you tell us all that the Christian god has a divine right to going hand-in-hand with government irrospective of whether or not everyone believes in him.

Damn it Kernel, you're supposed to ignore the blatent flamebait!

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-12 05:40pm

Just wondering, what is the reason why they shouldn't be displayed? I'm not arguing the point, just wondering what the arguments are.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-12 05:45pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Just wondering, what is the reason why they shouldn't be displayed? I'm not arguing the point, just wondering what the arguments are.

See the establishment clause of the Constitution.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-12 05:48pm

Durandal wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Just wondering, what is the reason why they shouldn't be displayed? I'm not arguing the point, just wondering what the arguments are.
See the establishment clause of the Constitution.

Haven't they been there since the inception? Wouldn't the FF have gotten them removed at first if they thought they were in violation of the Constitution?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-12 05:49pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Just wondering, what is the reason why they shouldn't be displayed? I'm not arguing the point, just wondering what the arguments are.

Displaying the Ten Commandments but not the rules of other religions is an obvious government endorsement of one religion over all others, hence a violation of the constitutional amendment prohibiting government establishment of religion.

In other words, if they want to post the Ten Commandments, they had better post the religious rules of the Koran, the Hindus, the teachings of Confucius, the principles of Taoism, Anton Lavey's Satanic Commandments, Wiccan verses, etc., all equally prominent.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-12 05:50pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Durandal wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Just wondering, what is the reason why they shouldn't be displayed? I'm not arguing the point, just wondering what the arguments are.
See the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Haven't they been there since the inception? Wouldn't the FF have gotten them removed at first if they thought they were in violation of the Constitution?

That's like asking if the Founding Fathers would have allowed slavery if they thought it was in violation of the Constitution, even though everyone agrees that it is in violation of its basic principles. There are many cases of the document being wiser than the men who wrote it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-12 05:50pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Durandal wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Just wondering, what is the reason why they shouldn't be displayed? I'm not arguing the point, just wondering what the arguments are.
See the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Haven't they been there since the inception? Wouldn't the FF have gotten them removed at first if they thought they were in violation of the Constitution?

The Ten Commandments are not a part of the Constitution.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-12 05:51pm

No... seeing as these ones(ten commandment displays) are recent additions

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-12 06:08pm

Alright, thanks for clearing that up.

lance · Post by **lance** » 2004-10-12 07:51pm

What would happen if a city opens certain spots open to the public, to put an image or text as a first come first serve basis? This would be slightly more intelligent for the fundies than going the fight against the constitution route. 'Cept it could backfire.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-12 08:14pm

I'm against it both because I consider a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution (which is the highest law in the nation) and because it offends me religiously. Looking at it from within a religious perspective, it establishes a claim that God's law (within the Judeo-Christian framework, divine law) is only a solid basis for man's law. Religiously, that is insulting to me and my beliefs, and is a mockery of Christian values.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2004-10-12 08:59pm

If I were a betting man, my money would be 5-3 against the TC. The majority opinion should have a lot to say about how much other stuff needs to be displayed in proximity to the TC for it to be Kosher.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-10-12 10:48pm

lance wrote:What would happen if a city opens certain spots open to the public, to put an image or text as a first come first serve basis?

They do, it's called private property.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-10-12 11:10pm

lance wrote:What would happen if a city opens certain spots open to the public, to put an image or text as a first come first serve basis? This would be slightly more intelligent for the fundies than going the fight against the constitution route. 'Cept it could backfire.

Of course the first thing somebody would post would be porn or as close as you can get to it.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-12 11:59pm

The Kernel wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Wow, this could either be very good, or very bad...
yes, yes it could

I suppose this is the part where you tell us all that the Christian god has a divine right to going hand-in-hand with government irrospective of whether or not everyone believes in him.

Hmmm... it's called something of a joke. We both agree it could be bad or good, yet we disagree on what's good and bad. Christ, take a joke.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-13 12:01am

Talon Karrde wrote:Hmmm... it's called something of a joke. We both agree it could be bad or good, yet we disagree on what's good and bad. Christ, take a joke.

People tend not to have a sense of humour around proven trolls. Whatta shock.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-13 12:50am

ReinnResauq wrote:With the same stupid-ass republican judges that put the shrub into office in the first place, I wouldn't be surprised if they say it's ok. We're in such a religious civil rights era.

Believe it or not the ruling wasn't some moronic bid to give the White House to Bush. It was a ruling that the Florida Supreme Court did not have the constitutional authority to order further recounts.