Supreme Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases

[Brown]

From Yahoo and AP:

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will take up the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government land and buildings, a surprise announcement that puts justices in the middle of a politically sensitive issue.
...
The high court will hear appeals 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.
...
Separately, they will consider whether a lower court wrongly barred the posting of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses.

As the cases approach time for argument, chances are good that the parties' and amicus briefs will be available on line. A decision could be expected in June.

At this early stage, there are some interesting aspects to the matter, and it not clear what role, if any, they will have. First, Justice Thomas has already gone on record in the Pledge case saying that he thinks states can establish a religion consistent with the Constitution. In his view, this is a right enjoyed by states, which is protected by the Bill of Rights. Second, the procedural posture of the Texas and Kentucky cases appears to be different, and may involve distinct issues of state law. As a result, there may be a way for a majority of the court to avoid the Constitutional issues, as was done in the Pledge case. Third, one of the cases facially involves a Ten Commandments display in conjunction with display of other documents, while the other case does not. Because the Court is very likely to hold that some kinds of displays are permissible on public property (e.g., emphasizing the secular duties of the Commandments, or not giving the Commandments emphasis over other historical documents), the Court see an opportunity to delineate what kinds of displays are permissible.

 

[Dorian Gray]

So when can we expect the Koran and Book of Mormon sculptures?

 

[Brown]

I want to expand a little bit upon why I said that "the Court is very likely to hold that some kinds of displays are permissible on public property."

It is possible--but very unlikely--that the Court may rule that all Ten Commandments displays on public property are banned, period. This would be what is called a "bright line" rule: a rule that is easy to apply and follow.

Such a bright line rule would mean that the Supreme Court itself would have to remove the images of Moses from its own building. The Court almost certainly isn't going to do that.

It would also mean that displays of religious art could not be shown in public museums. The Court isn't going to do that, either.

 

[phildonnia]

Re: Re: Supreme Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases

I want to expand a little bit ...

I think it depends on the purpose of the display. It's a slightly dimmer line, but I think it could be workable and consistent.

I would hope that public museums would continue to display religious-themed art, because the purpose is the exposure of the work. Similarly, the Bible should be read in public schools, as a highly piece of literature with immense historical significance.

The "under God" in the pledge of Allegience, on the other hand, is intended as religious indoctrination, and it has no place in a government-sponsored setting.

As for the frieze on the Supreme Court building, I think it's supposed to have a general "law" theme. Hammurabi and Muhammed are pictured there along with Moses, as contributing to our general concept of "law", and I have no problem with it.

The ten commandments, however, suggest a highly specific christian basis for law, and ought to be offensive to those who base their morality on something else.

 

[Tmy]

\ First, Justice Thomas has already gone on record in the Pledge case saying that he thinks states can establish a religion consistent with the Constitution. In his view, this is a right enjoyed by states, which is protected by the Bill of Rights. .

Consistent with the constitution?? Thats funny considering the Constitution specifically allows you to violate about 1/2 of the Commandments. I guess the 10 commandment woudlnt pass his little test.

 

[Brown]

Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases

As for the frieze on the Supreme Court building, I think it's supposed to have a general "law" theme. Hammurabi and Muhammed are pictured there along with Moses, as contributing to our general concept of "law", and I have no problem with it.

For those who are interested in following up on this point, there is a pretty good description of the images of Moses and the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building at the snopes web site. In none of the displays is the text of the Commandments shown. The frieze that phildonnia refers to specifically references (by number, not be text) commandments that are secular.

The Eagles monuments and "Roy's Rock" and some of the other commandment displays specifically recite duties that are clearly religious. One possible resolution might be to prohibit displays that recite the text of the commandments, or that recite religious duties. This resolution would have a benefit in that the Court would not be placed in the position of taking sides as to WHICH version of the Commandments is the correct one. There are, in fact, several versions of the Commandments, and various denominations number the Commandments in different ways.

 

[Brown]

Re: Re: Supreme Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases

Consistent with the constitution?? Thats funny considering the Constitution specifically allows you to violate about 1/2 of the Commandments. I guess the 10 commandment woudlnt pass his little test.

This is a good point.

Consistent with the constitution?? Well, I'm just as puzzled about what's going on inside Justice Thomas's brain as you are. His opinion in the Pledge case proposed to wipe out years and years of precedent concerning establishment of religion. No one joined him in his opinion, and it's not likely anyone will. If the pro-commandments forces were to use Justice Thomas's opinion as a basis for their arguments, they might find themselves in serious trouble with the Court.

It is basically correct that most of the Commandments are not law. Killing and stealing are prohibited, and bearing false witness can lead to civil and criminal liability in some situations. Coveting, however, is not against the law, and is arguably one of the driving forces of capitalism. (Some versions of the commandments refers to coveting slaves, implying that slavery is okay in the eyes of the Almighty; the Constitution flatly prohibits slavery.) Adultery is not an offense in most jurisdictions. Refusal to honor one's parents is not an offense. The religious duties are not compulsory by law, and goverrnment compulsion of these duites would be contrary to the First Amendment.

But Justice Thomas's rationale in the Pledge case suggests that a state COULD determine that the Ten Commandments shall be the law of the state, and doing so would not affect any individual religious liberty interest.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases

But Justice Thomas's rationale in the Pledge case suggests that a state COULD determine that the Ten Commandments shall be the law of the state, and doing so would not affect any individual religious liberty interest.

Of course Thomas is in favor of the Ten Commandments--they don't say a word about dirty jokes.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Might there be some time-sensitive component in this announcement vis-a-vis the upcoming election and the likelihood that whoever is president during the next four years will be nominating one or more justices?

 

[c0rbin]

Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases

This is a good point.

...

It is basically correct that most of the Commandments are not law. Killing and stealing are prohibited, and bearing false witness can lead to civil and criminal liability in some situations.

While I am of a live and let live mentality, this part got my goat the most--especially in the Alabama case. How hypocritical is it to uphold the divinity of a law that you are willing to break?

Alabama has put people to death for capitol crimes.

This is a fun one to bring up when someone starts spew moral reletavism non-sense.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Might there be some time-sensitive component in this announcement vis-a-vis the upcoming election and the likelihood that whoever is president during the next four years will be nominating one or more justices?

Cynic!

 

[Brown]

Might there be some time-sensitive component in this announcement vis-a-vis the upcoming election and the likelihood that whoever is president during the next four years will be nominating one or more justices?

I have wondered this myself, and I would not be surprised to learn that various talk shows and web sites pose the question as well. The argument might go something like this: The conservatives know that Kerry is going to win and that he is going to appoint more liberal successors. Therefore, the conservatives have conspired to set a major conservative precedent before they get outvoted, namely that the government can encourage religious morals without running afoul of the Establishment Clause.

Or the argument might go like this: The conservatives on the Court took the case so that Kerry would be forced to take an unpopular position on it, and so that Bush can turn the election into a referendum on the Ten Commandments.

Although I would not put such sinister motives beyond the realm of possibility, I do not see evidence of such sinister motives here. The Court traditionally begins its session on the first Monday in October, and often adds new cases to its docket after beginning a new session. One of the considerations affecting whether the Court takes a case is whether there is disagreement among various courts as to proper legal standards. The Ten Commandments cases have resulted in such disagreement. There is virtually no chance of any decision being reached on the merits before election day.

 

[Tmy]

I think the political makeup of the court is exaggerated a little.

You're forgetting one important factor. THE COURTS EGO!!!! Supreme Court Justices revel in the fact they they are this big check on the rest of govt. THey get off on it. Total God complex with lifetime appointments. They never want to be seen as puppets for the executive. You think you have them figured out then they come out with unexpected decisions.

 

[Nikk]

Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases

The "under God" in the pledge of Allegience, on the other hand, is intended as religious indoctrination, and it has no place in a government-sponsored setting.

As for the frieze on the Supreme Court building, I think it's supposed to have a general "law" theme. Hammurabi and Muhammed are pictured there along with Moses, as contributing to our general concept of "law", and I have no problem with it.

The ten commandments, however, suggest a highly specific christian basis for law, and ought to be offensive to those who base their morality on something else.

Suppose for the sake of argument the U.S. abandoned the separation of church and state. Would it matter? Why would it matter?

The U.K. gets on perfectly well with a head of state who is head of the established church and there is religious symbolism in every law court and on every coin. And you know what? It doesn't matter a damn.

The government subsidises protestant schools, catholic schools and jewish schools. Most of them are noted for higher than average educational standards and people actually pretend to be more religious than they are to get their children into them. As far as I am aware every state school teaches a certain amount of comparative religion and I think parents can opt for religious instruction if the school finds it convenient to provide it ( I'm a bit hazy on this as my son goes to a private school). None of this has the effect of encouraging the kind of knuckle dragging fundamentalism encountered in the U.S. It is possible to find creationists in the U.K. but you have to search quite hard.

It is in fact likely that the close relationship of church and state in Britain and other european countries acts to reduce religious extremism and ignorance as religious heirarchies have had to select intellectually respectable figures to maintain their influence in the system and their schools have to teach scientific orthodoxy.

In other words these slightly quaint arguments about church and state may be, from a sceptic's point of view, completely counter productive.

 

[Tmy]

You dont understand Nikk. Our churchy people really are hardcore. Not like that Eruro church-light were you pay lip service to the cloth, then go sin your asses off. Our christians really do believe in the church and all their wacky rules??


By the way, do you tax chruchs?? Id be up for that.

 

[Nikk]

You dont understand Nikk. Our churchy people really are hardcore. Not like that Eruro church-light were you pay lip service to the cloth, then go sin your asses off. Our christians really do believe in the church and all their wacky rules??


By the way, do you tax chruchs?? Id be up for that.

My point is that a church state relationship is not damaging per se. If you involve church and state there is the potential to reduce and possibly eliminate fundamentalism e.g. by allowing religion to be taught in schools but concurrently with solid science.

One thing that always puzzles me about religion in the U.S. is that there are so many literalist believers. I went to a catholic school but never encountered the simple minded approach to religion that is not uncommon in the States. In europe the population of countries which were once at least as devout as the U.S. such as Spain, Italy or Ireland have moved quite rapidly to become far more secular. Why this has not happened in the U.S. is curious and I do wonder if your rigid church/state separation is not an element in this anamolous development.

As regards your question about taxes, I think that churches are largely tax exempt here.

 

[CBL4]

It seems clear to me that religious symobols should be treated with an all or none doctrine e.g. you have to allow public displays from all religions or none. I used to favor not allowing any religious symbols but my wife changed my mind.

I now prefer allowing symbols from all religions. I do not mean from all mainstream religions but for all religions. I love the idea of the Satanic Christamas tree next to the Baptist one. On April 19th, the Branch Davidians can erect an icon of David Koresh in celebration of his birthday. We could even have an Atheist Day monument.

Imagine the horror in the face of a fundamentalist who has argued for inclusion of religious symbols.

CBL

 

[Ladewig]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases

Suppose for the sake of argument the U.S. abandoned the separation of church and state. Would it matter? Why would it matter?

Yes. Because about 45% of the U.S. population believe that it is incorrect to teach evolution without teaching creation science.

You need to understand just how ugly the camel trying to get his nose under the tent is.

 

[Tmy]

.

One thing that always puzzles me about religion in the U.S. is that there are so many literalist believers. I went to a catholic school but never encountered the simple minded approach to religion that is not uncommon in the States.

Not all of the US is like that. I too went to Catholic School and was taught evolution and all that. In the NorthEast and other areas religion isnt so intense. Im a catholic, and its funny how alot of "good catholics" have no problem with premarital sex, living in sin, birth control and other things that are no-no's.

But when you head out west and south, people take religion really seriously. I went to school out west and was shocked on how the young people where so into church and readingthe bible. Back home, young people would be embarrased to admit they read the bible, or attend church regularly.

 

[c0rbin]

My point is that a church state relationship is not damaging per se. If you involve church and state there is the potential to reduce and possibly eliminate fundamentalism e.g. by allowing religion to be taught in schools but concurrently with solid science.

One thing that always puzzles me about religion in the U.S. is that there are so many literalist believers. I went to a catholic school but never encountered the simple minded approach to religion that is not uncommon in the States. In europe the population of countries which were once at least as devout as the U.S. such as Spain, Italy or Ireland have moved quite rapidly to become far more secular. Why this has not happened in the U.S. is curious and I do wonder if your rigid church/state separation is not an element in this anamolous development.

As regards your question about taxes, I think that churches are largely tax exempt here.

Witness all of the blood that was shed for your country to find that happy balance--from Bloody Mary to Cromwell to North Ireland.