U.S. Supreme Court: 10 Commandments .....

[AURaptor 1,126]

Have a great Monday!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

However, they just ruled that they CAN be displayed at state capitols.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160781,00.html

The ruling was just handed down so there are no details on it yet. I'll be interested to hear how they distinguished the two cases.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Well, here's some more detail:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays inside courthouses, saying they violated the doctrine of separation of church and state...

...In contrast, a 6-foot-granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol - one of 17 historical displays on the 22-acre lot - was determined to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history.

"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

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S...-06-27-11-07-57

[Tigermike 3,053]

"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said

If that is the case, why would it matter if they were displayed in a courthouse or in state capitols?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said

If that is the case, why would it matter if they were displayed in a courthouse or in state capitols?

166016[/snapback]

From what I'm reading, it doesn't appear that the distinction was between state capitols and courthouses. It's between displays that stand alone (which to them crosses the line of promoting one religion over others) versus displays of the TC in a "historical context" like the TX state capitol where the TC display is one of 17 monuments in tribute to the history of state gov't.

[Tigermike 3,053]

"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said

If that is the case, why would it matter if they were displayed in a courthouse or in state capitols?

166016[/snapback]

From what I'm reading, it doesn't appear that the distinction was between state capitols and courthouses. It's between displays that stand alone (which to them crosses the line of promoting one religion over others) versus displays of the TC in a "historical context" like the TX state capitol where the TC display is one of 17 monuments in tribute to the history of state gov't.

166019[/snapback]

OK, that makes sense. So would it be accurate to assume that in the case here in Alabama, there was no other displays in the Ala Supreme Court?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Ok, let's review.

10 Commandments are NOT ok if used in a religious context.

10 Commandments ARE ok if used in a historical context.

There, hope that clears it up for everybody. :huh:

[Piglet 0]

Y'know, I don't even care any more. If they're up there, fine. If not, I'll look at 'em in church. Is having them or banning them going to create any jobs except for lawyers?