breaking: Supreme Court to consider....

[Claire Beth]

Supreme Court to consider constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government land and buildings. Details soon.

www.cnn.com

[Catfight]

1. Perfect timing for the debate. It's the Supreme Court stupid! n/t

[TaleWgnDg]

18. timing? . . . heh . . .

here's that cnn link . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/12/10.commandments.ap/index.html

[stevedeshazer]

2. Very interesting timing, no?

:grr:

[Claire Beth]

3. yeah....

how convenient can it get?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. It just doesn't get any more convenient... aren't there any rules

regarding what can and can't be done within a month or so of elections? I mean come on..... give us a break.

* "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." -- State of the Union Address (1/28/2003).

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

7. What sort of rules . . .

. . . could there possibly be?!? The Supreme Court's term starts in October. At the beginning of each term they begin to announce their ruling on pending cert petitions, indicating what cases they'll be hearing that term. It's no big thing.

[tom_paine]

In Imperial Amerika, there are no rules

We live in a Third-World Country now.

Just a few more shoes left to drop and a generation or two who were raised in freedom have to die off, leaving only those who have known Orwellian Lies and Tyranny...

...then watch your ass, for Endgame will have begun.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. ...then watch your ass, for Endgame will have begun<<

Well... it ain't worth much..... unemployed in shrub's economy... I wonder which way the winds of change will blow once Kerry is in control of this friggin mess shrub has made......

[TaleWgnDg]

20. I was being facetious (tongue-in-cheek)

merely b/c the USSC says it will review a case doesn't mean that it will be decided w/i a certain time frame, other than the end of the term which is June of next year. So your concern about the opinion being decided as to this presidential election cycle is w/o merit.


. . . . . . . .


edited to add: in other words, you got all hot 'n bothered about nothing. nada. zed. zero. and it's not "breaking news" !!

[tinanator]

5. Kerry needs to ignore this ploy

Its not relevant.

[Claire Beth]

8. I don't think Bush....

Will allow him to ignore it.

[coalition_unwilling]

30. If the issue comes up, Kerry should strongly condemn *'s efforts

to politicize decisions of the USSC. That will play well among all but the kook faction backing *.

[Politicub]

6. Ugh

Sometimes I wish they would stay away from decisions like this. I think this is something being pushed by the right wing of the court to mobilize conservative voters.

We are a secular country. The way I see this, there are two decisions that the court could make. One, relgious symbols in the court are allowed, as long as all major ones are represented. Or, no religous symbols in the court.

I hope for the later, but I guess we'll all find out soon enough.

[Coconut Buddha Ape]

11. or...

3) they could toss the case back down to a lower court
4) they could toss the case out on a technicality (like the Pledge case)

or dare I say...

5) Reach the conclusion that religious iconography represents part of the historical fabric of our country, and is not meant to be interpreted as a state endorsement of religion.

I am banking on your #2 or my #4 (with a side bet on #5 just to be safe).

[VegasWolf]

40. If they're going to start displaying religious icons that are

representative of our history, I'd much rather see
a large statue of Kokopelli sitting there!

[napi21]

9. I doubt they will have a decision on this before the election.

I may be wrong, but it seems like they hear arguments in lots of cases, consider them all, and then release decisions later on one or two days. I think it usually takes a month or two at least.

[shaolinmonkey]

10. Isn't the First Amendment pretty clear on this,

regarding "establishment of religion"? If the government were taking down the 10 commandments in churches I'd be pissed, but this is a public building.

Dumb.

[UpInArms]

17. built, funded, maintained, and with

all employees therein paid for with taxpayer dollars - assessed to everyone within that jurisdiction regardless of their personal beliefs.

text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

here is more on the subject:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1

In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'' 15 In Reynolds v. United States, 16 Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.'' In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jefferson's metaphor for substantial guidance. 17 But a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on governmental action. 18 The concept of neutrality itself is ''a coat of many colors,'' 19 and three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were part of the same formulation. ''The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.'' 20 The third test is whether the governmental program results in ''an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . he questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.'' 21 In 1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger's opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 22 and are frequently referred to by reference to that case name.

[amber dog democrat]

13. Congress shall make no law establishing a religion

How hard is this to figure out? The Constitution must be amended first.

[Catfight]

24. That's why I think this will be good for Kerry. To show an extremist

like Bush who will appoint judges who arbitrarily change the Constitution to force religion on America. It's so perfect, if you want to really scare people, the majority, start changing the Constitution to make us all believe just like Bush does. I don't see how this is bad, it gives Kerry a chance to shine a light on Bush the religious fanatic, who is no better than Osma and his extremist, and how Bush will not stop to change this country into a Baptist fundamentalist regime.

[amber dog democrat]

26. At the worst I see this going down as 5-4 against.

Thomas, Scalia, Renquist, and Kennedy voting in favor.
It could well miscarry and cause the Fundies some real problems.
Good point.

[legally blonde]

34. I think you're right, Amber dog

but, Scalia might vote against this. Although he is very conservative, he is a strict constructionist. He always votes the way that he thinks the founding fathers would have intended the constitution to be interpreted.
But, as it was pointed out in an earlier post, I don't think that this case will be decided any time soon (definitely not before the elections, anyway).

[Jacobin]

38. I disagree. Scalia is not at all 'conservative'

He's a radical who uses whatever language he wants to use to further his agenda. He's against states rights (Bush v. Gore) when its convenient and but for them when its convenient.

He has a revisionist history thing going. He's been quoted as saying that the constitution doesn't prohibit religious intrusion into government.

He's a radical. he might as well join the Taliban.

I look for him to vote in favor of allowing religious monumnents (christian only, of course) to be used on public property.

[amber dog democrat]

39. Well, I am cluless as to how Scalia would go.

He seems to vote for the wrong things...If I have low expectations I won't be surprised much. You could be right and i want to be fair. This is just my guess.

As for Thomas the Think Tank Enema , I have no doubt he would shore up; the fundies.
I can't remember anything he has said that I agree with.

[Mike Niendorff]

44. Scalia? "strict constructionist"? My ass.

see: Bush v. Gore.

End of story.

(longer version: see most of his dissenting opinions -- the man is a radical, trying to invoke the appearance of "strict constructionism" in order to earn a pass on his wildly right-wing activism)

MDN

[Lucille]

14. The conservatives on the court want to bring it to a vote

In order to help Bush bring out his fundie base. A lot of them stayed home in 2000, and Bush needs them. When the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, the fundies will be enraged and will go out and vote.

[Claire Beth]

16. yeah...that is what I'm thinking too....

his radical right wing religious base is only hope. They may feel this will swing the undecidedes to their side, too.

[skooooo]

15. I bet it gets slapped down.

[qwlauren35]

19. This is awful...

Religious words and symbols exist throughout our documents, mottos and history. The Declaration of Independence includes the words "God" and "creator"; Arizona's state motto translates to "God Enriches", Ohio's is: "With God, All Things are Possible". Several of our states were founded by Christian "refugees"; Pennsylvania, Massachusetts. Maryland was founded as a Catholic state. They are blatantly on our coins: "in God we trust".

AND! Over 70% of all Americans are Christian.

There seems to be an enormous push to eradicate something that is at the core of our nation's founding, i.e. belief in God.

I do NOT share that belief. My faith has no Creator theology, and no supreme deity. However, I don't get bent out of shape by the Ten Commandments. I think the last 7 are important, and I even agree that a Sabbath can be a good thing, especially if the other days are days in which you are faithless!

So fine, chop off the first 3... but I think the 10 Commandments have historical context; a recognition of the faith of the founders.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[apnu]

21. sure... and to all the...

non-Christians in America? What about them.

Look, the issue of religious symbols on government buildings is a FAIR PLAY issue. If you are going to have the 10 commandments on government property, it better well have room for the Buddhists, Hindus, Quabblistics (Jewish mystics), and Islamics in this nation. Oh and the Wiccians to boot as well.

Because then, and only then, will the government be fair to everybody. And let's face facts shall we? Its easier to have NO religious mottoes and symbols on government property than it is to include ALL religions on government property.

[Claire Beth]

23. There are plenty of americans who are NOT....

Christian. are they going to display quotes from the "Koran" and other religions to be posted beside the 10 commandments? Where does it stop? This is why it is best to keep church and state separated, PERIOD. The 10 commandments should should not become an "idol" for the religious right if they stay true to "Thou shalt have no other graven images before me"....seems to me they want it both ways.

[qwlauren35]

28. Actually, relatively speaking...

there aren't "plenty".

However, I think you miss my point. I think the Commandments potentially have historical reference, and that's a question that needs to be answered - when were they first put there.

If they were first put there in the 1700's, then I think they should stay. If they showed up in the 1950's, I'm happy to let them go.

[Claire Beth]

32. untrue....

there ARE plenty of Americans who are NOT Christians. If the historical argument is made in the decision of these biblical commandments on court houses, where do you draw the time line? That is an argument for another argument. It's just best to keep church and state separated PERIOD.

[qwlauren35]

33. Plenty is relative.

Perhaps I should have restated it - they aren't the majority. By a longshot.

Don't get me wrong. I'm NOT Christian. Left the church at age 12. Took Buddhist vows at age 18. I'm one of the "plenty, but NOT majority".

Now - looking directly at the Bill of Rights, I think a LOT of people don't know exactly what it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The "separation of church and state" is implied but not stated explicitly, and is therefore up to interpretation by the Supreme Court.

The way I see it, the federal government (Congress) should never enact a law which favors a particular religion or establishes a state religion. That's by the book.

BUT! States can do what they want. And if there is NO law, then it's up to the discretion of those in charge. There's no law currently prohibiting federal buildings from having a copy of the Ten Commandments.

As a result, it doesn't bother me to have them there. They still represent the MAJORITY of opinion in America.

I agree, the major laws of many religions should be represented. And I think that would be beautiful.

But it's not practical.

But, in the end... the reality is that you and I simply have different opinions of the matter. It should be interesting to see what the Supreme Court ends up saying. If they go by letter of the law, I think they'll leave it up; there is no law prohibiting it. If they go by spirit of the law, I wouldn't attempt to second guess them.

[Claire Beth]

36. I really appreciate the Buddhists..

way. They are peaceful and always seem "at peace"... That is MY idea of what religion should be.

[amber dog democrat]

25. What if you are an Agnostic ?

and suscribe to no creed. Doesn't all the Christian iconography seem to imply that there is an erroding separation between church and state ?

We need to tread very carefully here. I would more fear a transition into a theocracy.

[struggle4progress]

31. "This is awful..."? What, exactly, do you think is awful? eom

[PurityOfEssence]

37. There's no mention of god or a creator in the Constitution

The Declaration of Independence is a position paper drawn up during the middle of a divisive war.

The Constitution is the law of the land. What you need to understand is that there's pro-religion, anti-religion, and religion-neutral. If you can't bear the latter, then you are deeply anti-pluralist and/or have such a weak faith that you have to get everyone to nod along with you so you won't be eaten up with doubts.

More than anything, it's of note that a bunch of eighteenth century men could see this as true at a time when secularism was a bit rare.

The first English settlement in North America that survived was Jamestown, and that was NOT a religious operation; it was pure business. The Dutch in New Amsterdam were also in it for the money.

Not only that, many of our founding fathers were not Christian, we got very significant financial support from Jews during the Revolution, and the very bedrock of our government is secularism. That's what's allowed us to grow and prosper; it's not mere happenstance.

There's plenty of religion all over the place and in full view of the public; it comes from private entities, and that's as it should be.

Filing amicus briefs (like Ashcroft did) to support Maryland Christians who put religious propaganda in the backpacks of Kindergartners is OUT OF LINE. Forcing children to acknowledge the "existence" of some supernatural whatever is abusive and intrusive.

Simply put, you have no right to redress because people don't want their government proselytizing your guess; feel free to be unhappy about it, but be thankful other beliefs aren't being shoved down your throat with your taxes.

[bushisanidiot]

22. Kerry should point out that the Democratic party is NOT against prayer,

the 10 commandments, religion, etc.. we are just against merging religion with government. If democrats were against christianity or any religion, we'd be protesting outside churches.. being the parade throwing, tree hugging protestors that we are.

Government CANNOT be run from a religious pulpit in this country. Religion-run government is not what the framers of the constitution intended and that is VERY clear.

[ismnotwasm]

27. Why, oh why?

The ten commandments, cut in stone, burned on paper, carved in someone's forehead--whatever, do not belong on government lands or in government buildings. At the risk of sounding trite, (and I know I'm taking this a bit out of context) we are a government "for the people and by the people" I am NOT Christian. And I am part of the people. I would not expect to impose my belief systems, practices or dogma on anyone down at the my local court house. I don't expect to walk in and see someone else's.

[Endangered Specie]

29. Sounds like an October suprise waiting to happen.

[daleo]

35. Anyone who doesn't want 10 commandments on courts

Should have to wear a Scarlett Letter on their shirt. Maybe a big red A, for "atheist, agnostic, or anti-Abraham". And the president should change his name to Dimsdale.

[truthisfreedom]

43. and be put on the no-fly list, of course.

[54anickel]

41. Don't forget Phelps hunted down these displays to put his monument

of hate in public places.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091054/

snip>

Cities are hardly obligated to let private groups build monuments in public parks, so ordinarily it would be easy to get rid of Phelps. But since 1965, Casper Central Park has been home to a granite replica of the Ten Commandments donated by the local Fraternal Order of Eagles. That poses a problem for Casper, because if a city wants to open up its property to the messages of private religious groups, it had better be prepared to welcome all of them, however unfortunate. It doesn't solve the problem, as Casper is now attempting to argue, for a city to try to collect and display the monuments it considers historically significant, put them up together, then reject the rest. Picking and choosing between monuments because of their subject matter is just as risky, when it comes to claims of government discrimination, as choosing among them based on their point of view.

[Tight_rope]

42. WTF!....These people have gone too far!

[MsMagnificent]

45. If they rule in favor

then ALL my hope is gone for this country and the continuation of our Constitution... the separation of Church & State!

I'm a Christian, yet it still sickens me...

[Yavin4]

46. This Is Right Wing Christian Arrogance At Its Finest

This has nothing to do with religious freedom nor religious expression. Right wing Christianity is about establishing itself as the dominant religion in the U.S. These people arrogantly believe that their religious iconography will be the only one displayed and promoted by the government. They would protest in anger if an islamic symbol was also displayed on government property.

Yet, our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, pander to these people because they're desperate for votes at any cost, and playing on religious prejudices is far easier than say proposing a plan for national healthcare or doing something about the alarming rise of poverty in America.

Folks, we're heading down a dark, dark road if this crap continues. The future of this country is in serious doubt.

[Disturbed]

48. Christian Monument?

How can this be so? The Jews supposedly got these from their God of War. Are any Jewish orgs. commenting on this situation?

[54anickel]

47. Coming to a Theocracy state near you. n/t

[Magleetis]

49. I keep hearing Zappa

in my head. Check out these lyrics from "When The Lie's So Big" from the CD Broadway the Hard Way. (Sub any Repug for Robertson)

http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/lyrics/Broadway_The_Hard_Way.html#Lie

It could happen.

[tinanator]

53. how about "Dumb all over"?

that ones an all time classic.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

50. Blah blah blah

What a stupid piece of shit issue for them to waste their and our time on. I do not believe I am paying the salary of these jackasses. They should be shoveling pigshit or picking up trash by the freeway--something useful. Fuck the Supreme Court, the lower courts, and everyone involved in our so called justice system.

[Charlie Brown]

51. They wouldn't even hear this case

Unless most of them had decided to side with the fundamentalists. Sorry, freedom of religion peoople have already lost here, before its begun. And Roy Moore becomes a hero. How revolting.

[Bluebear]

52. Oh what a "coincidence".

What is the Fundy uniform equating a burqa? Better start shopping if * is re-"elected"!