The Supreme Court Blows It Again
Article by AP's Hope Yen.
"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.
"Sending dual signals in ruling on this issue for the first time in a quarter-century, the high court said that displays of the Ten Commandments — like their own courtroom frieze — are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits."
Found at Captain's Quarters. Captain Ed had this to say (among other things; go read the whole thing):
"Despite the prevailing mood about faith, the First Amendment did not establish an absolute right for Americans to never have to encounter religion in the public square. Such an argument would have been laughed at by the founders of the Republic. All it meant was that the federal government could not establish an official religion, but instead had to ensure the rights of all to worship freely. That amendment had its basis on the brutal Catholic/Protestant wars fought by England that had torn the country to pieces over the previous two centuries. It never mandated that government could not use religious symbols in displays or even in its language, and such interpretations have numerous examples of their folly in the language of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself."
Jon Podhoretz at The Corner had this to say: "Why didn't the Supremes just say you could display the 10 Cs on Monday, Wed, and alternate Fridays, but not on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Or that they could be viewed inside government buildings, but only on the walls of bathrooms and in janitors' closets? Has anybody ever advanced this radical opinion -- that the five justices in question may be intelligent and thoughtful people individually, but that together they form one blithering idiot?"
Michelle Malkin has tons o' reactions, too.
I don't get it. I'm not an historian, or a religious expert, or even fluent in Constitutional Law. But I do understand that the mere presence of something in a government building associated with a religion is not de facto a government endorsement of that religion. It's like the fire evacuation procedures in hotel rooms -- how many people actually read those? If you don't want to look at the Ten Commandments posted in a government building, don't. Until there is a law stating we all have to prostrate ourselves before any religious symbol in any government building before we're allowed access, the mere presence of the symbol is not an endorsement. This country was founded by Christians, and has as the basis of its laws a belief in God.
The Bill of Rights, Amendment One:
"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."
Freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion. If I get it, how hard could it be? Link
"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.
"Sending dual signals in ruling on this issue for the first time in a quarter-century, the high court said that displays of the Ten Commandments — like their own courtroom frieze — are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits."
Found at Captain's Quarters. Captain Ed had this to say (among other things; go read the whole thing):
"Despite the prevailing mood about faith, the First Amendment did not establish an absolute right for Americans to never have to encounter religion in the public square. Such an argument would have been laughed at by the founders of the Republic. All it meant was that the federal government could not establish an official religion, but instead had to ensure the rights of all to worship freely. That amendment had its basis on the brutal Catholic/Protestant wars fought by England that had torn the country to pieces over the previous two centuries. It never mandated that government could not use religious symbols in displays or even in its language, and such interpretations have numerous examples of their folly in the language of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself."
Jon Podhoretz at The Corner had this to say: "Why didn't the Supremes just say you could display the 10 Cs on Monday, Wed, and alternate Fridays, but not on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Or that they could be viewed inside government buildings, but only on the walls of bathrooms and in janitors' closets? Has anybody ever advanced this radical opinion -- that the five justices in question may be intelligent and thoughtful people individually, but that together they form one blithering idiot?"
Michelle Malkin has tons o' reactions, too.
I don't get it. I'm not an historian, or a religious expert, or even fluent in Constitutional Law. But I do understand that the mere presence of something in a government building associated with a religion is not de facto a government endorsement of that religion. It's like the fire evacuation procedures in hotel rooms -- how many people actually read those? If you don't want to look at the Ten Commandments posted in a government building, don't. Until there is a law stating we all have to prostrate ourselves before any religious symbol in any government building before we're allowed access, the mere presence of the symbol is not an endorsement. This country was founded by Christians, and has as the basis of its laws a belief in God.
The Bill of Rights, Amendment One:
"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."
Freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion. If I get it, how hard could it be? Link
posted by JT | 12:04 PM
<< Home