Supreme Court has ruled Ten Commandments....

[earthquake~weather]

Ahahahahaha! I love to catch AP in a goof-up...

Actually, in the Texas case, Breyer appears to have been the "swing vote"... O'Connor dissented on that one.

The full text of the decision can be read here: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1500.pdf

It looks like my earlier assessment was pretty much correct .... the Texas monument was allowed to slide because it 1) pre-dates the "culture war"; 2) is one of 21 historical markers displayed in the same small area around the capital, most of which have nothing to do with religion; 3) was given as a gift to the state from the Fraternal Order of Eagles and was displayed as a tribute to their organization, as opposed to a tribute to Christianity as a whole.

vbhoutex, I am not sure there could be any one set of "rules" that could apply equally to each and every situation, unfortunately. Determining intent isn't an easy thing ... and I think the Court is setting themselves (and the lesser courts) up for a lot of work by going this route.... but overall it seems to me to be the only fair way to decide things...

[rainstorm]

Separation of church and state... good decision.

what "separation of church and state"? its not in the constitution. for 200 years this has caused no problems. a totallt idiotic descision

[Skywatch_NC]

They can make someone swear on the Bible "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" before giving testimony, but you can't have the Ten Commandments in the court house. Go figure

I agree...truly ironic...the Bible is allowed in the courthouse...but Katie bar the door when it comes to the Ten Commandments.

[swimaster20]

I think it has less to do with the actual location of the display (indoor vs. outdoor) than it does with the intent of the body who put it there. IF you read the decision by Justice Souter (http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1693P.ZO.pdf), its clear that the Court felt that the intent of the two counties in question was to evangelize, and it is that intent that crosses the line of neutrality. The full text decision for the Texas case is not online yet that I know of....but I assume that the age of the monument and its history as well as its location were all factors in allowing it to stay (the Kentucky displays were posted in 1999, well after the "culture war" over religious symbols was underway).

So we really are right where we began .....religious symbols with clear historical and educational significance are allowed on public grounds; sectarian displays erected by moralizing figures in the name of "the public good" are not. Seems fair enough to me ... it allows our rich religious history to be preserved without allowing public figures (whose salaries we all pay) to shove foreign religions down anyone's throat.

OK, well in our court systems we make people swear on the Bible, and in God's name. How come this isn't considered a combination of Church and State? Like I stated before, I totally disagree with this Supreme Court decision. Atheists/Agnostics are the minority in this country. Why should we Christians, the majority, have to suffer for them? If our government is so concerned with the separation of Church and State then, IMHO, no one should swear on the Bible, and no one should ask God for help. However since we do that I think the Ten Commandments should be allowed in all government buildings.

[earthquake~weather]

Lindaloo, rainstorm -

Personally, I think if one reads the early versions of the part of the First Amendment we now refer to as the "establishment clause," its clear that the Founding Fathers (at least Jefferson and Madison, anyways) wanted to protect the public from religion as much as they wanted to protect religion:

Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'' 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' 3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#2

(that site also has an interesting history of cases relating to religion and the establishment clause - it will give you some insight into the evolution of the court's opinion on this topic.)

Skywatch, I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think anyone with a shred of common sense feels like they are under the heavy hand of religion when swearing on the Bible .... its place as historical tradition outweighs its place as religious ceremony for most, and has for decades upon decades. On the other hand, if someone slaps a gigantic monument to their deity (be it Jesus or Buddha or Allah etc.) in the middle of a public building with the sole purpose of declaring their religion right and proper... thats endorsement, thats evangelizing...and its much more offensive than a traditional nod to a religious past...

[Stephanie]

I think it has less to do with the actual location of the display (indoor vs. outdoor) than it does with the intent of the body who put it there. IF you read the decision by Justice Souter (http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1693P.ZO.pdf), its clear that the Court felt that the intent of the two counties in question was to evangelize, and it is that intent that crosses the line of neutrality. The full text decision for the Texas case is not online yet that I know of....but I assume that the age of the monument and its history as well as its location were all factors in allowing it to stay (the Kentucky displays were posted in 1999, well after the "culture war" over religious symbols was underway).

So we really are right where we began .....religious symbols with clear historical and educational significance are allowed on public grounds; sectarian displays erected by moralizing figures in the name of "the public good" are not. Seems fair enough to me ... it allows our rich religious history to be preserved without allowing public figures (whose salaries we all pay) to shove foreign religions down anyone's throat.

That's the way I take the decisions as well. The intent of the display seems to be the difference....

As I said I haven't had time to read the decision. Does it basically state the "rules" under which the intent is determined? Sounds like it could be left to someone who could lean either way to make those determinations.

I guess it's like all other court cases - it's the "intent" that makes or breaks the case.

That was a good summary earthquake! I can accept the decision based on that reason.

[yzerfan]

They can make someone swear on the Bible "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" before giving testimony, but you can't have the Ten Commandments in the court house. Go figure

It's my understanding that all courts are supposed to offer everyone giving sworn testimony a choice whether they wish to swear (God/bible option) or affirm (no references to religion option) their testimony is true.

[kevin]

I would never swear on the bible. The bible says you can lie, I mean look at Abram with that Egyptian-King-Guy.

EDIT - The forbidding of false testimony probably means you have to be either really cool (which Abram was), or a father of many nations (which Abram is said to be), or if you are dealing with an Egyptian, in order to lie.

[feederband]

Good decision? How does turning our backs on God rate as "good"? And don't start with "Separation of Church and State". There is not one word in the U.S. CONSTITUTION about gutting all mention of God from our government and public areas. The Constitution was written, signed and prayed-over by God-fearing men! What IS there, is that the government shall not ESTABLISH a religion. Ahem! As in "Church of England". THIS is why there is no "Church of the United States of America". READ the Constitution, and the writings of our founding fathers, then make a case if you can.

Turning our backs on God.? This would be your God...... You must understand not every one has your beliefs. This is a good decision. I am athiest. But I am not one of these take God out of everything. But also beleive your religion should be kept within your self and your churches.

[MGC]

This term of the USSC has got to have been the goofiest in years. I have not agreed with many decisions the court has handed down this term, among them today's Ten Commandments ruling and the eminent domain ruling of last week. Personally, I hope a good number of justices decide to retire and Bush gets to make some appointments of some judges that understand the constitution........MGC

[OtherHD]

This term of the USSC has got to have been the goofiest in years. I have not agreed with many decisions the court has handed down this term, among them today's Ten Commandments ruling and the eminent domain ruling of last week. Personally, I hope a good number of justices decide to retire and Bush gets to make some appointments of some judges that understand the constitution........MGC

lol..thanks for giving my eyes a good workout...I just did about 10 reps of eye rolls!