SCOTUS & 10 Commandments

[Supercharts]

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal on Ten Commandments

"The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on Monday rejected an appeal by Kentucky of a ruling that barred the display of a large granite monument with the Ten Commandments on the state Capitol grounds in Frankfort.

Without comment, the justices let stand a federal appeals court ruling that the display would violate church-state separation under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=1&u=/nm/20030428/ts_nm/court_commandments_dc

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Maybe there is some hope for the Supreme court after all.

I figured they would fall all over themselves to get those displays back up. It's nice to be wrong occasionally

 

[arcticpenguin]

Yes. With people like Scalia on the court, I cringe every time a case like this comes up.

Since they didn't hear this case, we don't get a breakdown on how many SCOTUS justices would have taken each side. I find it amazing when an issue comes up that I consider to be a slam-dunk, how many judges will take the opposing point of view.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Yeah, I remember hearing Scalia interviewed on NPR some months back and hearing him go on and on about How God was the source of all law and so on and so forth until I didn't know if I was hearing an interview or a sermon. It made me really wonder about the odds of keeping any seperaaion of church and state with people like him on the bench.

 

[c4ts]

Yeah, I remember hearing Scalia interviewed on NPR some months back and hearing him go on and on about How God was the source of all law and so on and so forth until I didn't know if I was hearing an interview or a sermon. It made me really wonder about the odds of keeping any seperaaion of church and state with people like him on the bench.

Still very high. There should be enough disestablishmentarianistic checks and balances to keep our nation from becoming a theocracy.

 

[Upchurch]

"The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on Monday rejected an appeal by Kentucky of a ruling that barred the display of a large granite monument with the Ten Commandments on the state Capitol grounds in Frankfort.

I dunno. I hate to waffle back and forth on this, but I'm not sure I agree that a monument on the grounds of the capital necessarily implies an endourcement of Judism/Christianity. I mean, when is it an endorcement and when is it just art?

Consider the statue of Justice, which nearly every court house has. Should we consider that an endorcement that blind women should carry big swords?

(Mmm.... waffle)

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I would agree with you if it were JUST Scalia or even just the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately we have a Fundamentalist president and a largely Fundamentalist Congress in addition to the likes of Scalia in the Supreme Court.

I just worry that they all will work in concert to bring their vision of a 'Christain America' to fruition

 

[Upchurch]

I just worry that they all will work in concert to bring their vision of a 'Christain America' to fruition

While I am also worried about this, the idea of policy that is based on the present situation rather than the long-term good seems, well, short-sighted.

Why do you suppose this has come up now and not in the previous 200 years?

 

[c4ts]

Re: Re: SCOTUS & 10 Commandments

Consider the statue of Justice, which nearly every court house has. Should we consider that an endorcement that blind women should carry big swords?

(Mmm.... waffle)

Not really, since it is the endorsement of Dike herself.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

While I am also worried about this, the idea of policy that is based on the present situation rather than the long-term good seems, well, short-sighted.

Why do you suppose this has come up now and not in the previous 200 years?

I am not sure what you mean by the first part of your post. How is trying to keep overt religious statements out of Government a policy based on 'the present situation rather than the long-term good '?

As for why this comes up now rather than in the last 200 years, I think it is because society has changed where it is safer (in a variety of senses) to admit to being a non-christian (of any stripe, whether atheist or simply adhering to a different religion) so non-christians are more likely to stand up to Christians attempts to force their beliefs onothers. And the Christians (who still comprise a huge majority) feel threatened so as a result they double their efforts to impose their views on others.

This is my view of the matter anyway

 

[Crossbow]

I for one am glad that the Supreme Court has allowed the ruling stand regarding the removal of the 10 Commandments statue.

However, I think they should have acted far sooner in what was clearly just a ploy by the one judge to attract attention to himself prior to his election campaign.

 

[Upchurch]

I am not sure what you mean by the first part of your post. How is trying to keep overt religious statements out of Government a policy based on 'the present situation rather than the long-term good '?

No, my beef is the policy based on "the present situation rather than the long-term good". The seperation of church and state issue is incidental (i.e. the "present situation"). Even though I do believe in seperation of church and state, I'd have a problem if they were banning a piece of art that symbolized something even if I didn't disagree with what it was symbolizing.

(enough double negatives floating around in there for you?)

As for why this comes up now rather than in the last 200 years, I think it is because society has changed where it is safer (in a variety of senses) to admit to being a non-christian (of any stripe, whether atheist or simply adhering to a different religion) so non-christians are more likely to stand up to Christians attempts to force their beliefs onothers. And the Christians (who still comprise a huge majority) feel threatened so as a result they double their efforts to impose their views on others.

I dunno. I mean, many of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. I think rather the Country started out more diverse, became more Christian and is now begining to swing back.

My point is that you take two sculptures. One is designated as art and is protected by the frist amendent. The other is designated as a symbol and is not protected by the first amendment. How do you tell which is which?

 

[arcticpenguin]

My point is that you take two sculptures. One is designated as art and is protected by the frist amendent. The other is designated as a symbol and is not protected by the first amendment. How do you tell which is which?

Hint: the one that says I am the lord they God, thou shalt have no other gods before me is the overtly religious one.

 

[Upchurch]

Hint: the one that says I am the lord they God, thou shalt have no other gods before me is the overtly religious one.

*snort* Fair enough.

I'm just saying, religious-based art is still art. I've got some Hindu prints in my house, but I'm not advocating Hinduism. I just think they look neat.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

*snort* Fair enough.

I'm just saying, religious-based art is still art. I've got some Hindu prints in my house, but I'm not advocating Hinduism. I just think they look neat.

And that's fine. But you aren't forcing me to subsidize them through taxes. Further a private citizen owning them, even displaying them in his yard for all the world to see is fine. If the Government does it, then it begins to become an endorsement of religion

 

[Upchurch]

And that's fine. But you aren't forcing me to subsidize them through taxes. Further a private citizen owning them, even displaying them in his yard for all the world to see is fine. If the Government does it, then it begins to become an endorsement of religion

I'm pretty much convinced that you're right, but just to play it out, let me throw this one at you.

Here at the Saint Louis city-financed art museum, there is a section that has some wonderful pieces of art from old European Catholic churches. As a tax payer, I'm forced to subsidize it and it is on city property. Does that make it an endorsement of religion?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm pretty much convinced that you're right, but just to play it out, let me throw this one at you.

Here at the Saint Louis city-financed art museum, there is a section that has some wonderful pieces of art from old European Catholic churches. As a tax payer, I'm forced to subsidize it and it is on city property. Does that make it an endorsement of religion?

That's a good point I hadn't thought of.

However I think the difference lies in the context. An Art Museums job is to present good art to the public. Some good art (especially from Medieval and Rennaisance times) is going to have a religious theme. Religion is part of our worlds artistic and historical heritage so the museum would be remiss in NOT showing it (unless they did something stupid, like have a picture of hell and have as part of the exhibit "This is the fate of all sinners" or something as ridiculous as that). As long as it is simply presented as a work of art I don't have a problem

A Ten Commandments display, on the other hand is in a different setting. For one there would be few who would argue that they have any artistic merit (Though I will concede that artistic merit is in the eye of the beholder). I see little point in them EXCEPT to educate the viewer about Judeo-Christian morality. This education is not the purview of the parks department (or Whoever is responsible for the display) or any other government entity.

I guess it boils down to the intent of the people who put it up. I will admit that that is a hard to guage but I think if you look at the larger picture of the displays context, it can be done

 

[Baker]

Unfortunately we have a Fundamentalist president and a largely Fundamentalist Congress in addition to the likes of Scalia in the Supreme Court.

How did you come to the conclusion that we have a fundamentalist president?

 

[GrapeJ713]

That's a good point I hadn't thought of.

However I think the difference lies in the context. An Art Museums job is to present good art to the public. Some good art (especially from Medieval and Rennaisance times) is going to have a religious theme. Religion is part of our worlds artistic and historical heritage so the museum would be remiss in NOT showing it (unless they did something stupid, like have a picture of hell and have as part of the exhibit "This is the fate of all sinners" or something as ridiculous as that). As long as it is simply presented as a work of art I don't have a problem

I concur, I was going to post something similiar but probably not as good. Government should be neutral to religion, neither directly endorsing nor blocking access to how people want to worship. Unless special rights would be necessary to practice a certain religion. Example: native american indian sects being able to smoke peyote when anyone else doing it would be thrown in jail. Churches do fine on their own without any help from the government.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

How did you come to the conclusion that we have a fundamentalist president?

Okay, in retrospect, perhaps fundamentalist is too strong a word for our president. He may be and he may not be. I don't think his actions and associations leave any doubt that he is highly religious and that he desires stronger ties between church and state (i.e. his plans for faith based initiatives)