[fire_mat99]

March 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court, hearing arguments on whether a 6-foot-tall Ten Commandments monument can remain on the Texas state Capitol grounds, debated when government may acknowledge the role of religion in public life.

Several justices expressed support for letting the monument remain on the Capitol grounds. They noted that many legislatures open their sessions with a prayer and that the high court itself has a decorative frieze that shows Moses, holding a tablet depicting the commandments, among other historical lawgivers.

``You don't object to that,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said to Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, representing homeless lawyer Thomas Van Orden of Austin, who challenged the monument. Later in the argument, though, she told the Texas attorney general that every monument on the state Capitol grounds ``conveys a message of state endorsement.''

Display proponents, including the Bush administration, say the commandments are a foundation of secular U.S. law and placing them on public property doesn't violate the Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion. Critics say they are a government endorsement of religion.

The court in Washington also heard arguments over whether two Kentucky courthouses can display framed copies of the commandments among other documents considered foundations of U.S. law.

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia spoke in favor of keeping the Texas monument on the Capitol grounds.

`Avert His Eyes'

``If an atheist walks by, he can avert his eyes,'' Kennedy said. Saying the government can't accommodate religion is ``hypocritical and it's asking religious people to surrender their beliefs,'' he said.

The commandments are ``a profound religious message believed in by a vast majority of the American people,'' Scalia said. ``There's nothing wrong with the government reflecting that.''

Justice John Paul Stevens questioned how far governments could go, asking Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott whether the state could display a crucifix of the same size outside the Capitol. Abbott said he doubted it, because a crucifix wasn't a recognized symbol of law.

Noting that the monument contained religious symbols such as the words Chi and Rho and a star of David, Justice David H. Souter said it was hard to find there was ``anything here but an expression of approval by the state of Texas for a religious expression.''

``The Ten Commandments is enormously divisive right now,'' Chemerinsky told the justices.

Roy Moore

There are as many as two dozen similar legal battles across the U.S. over displays on government property of the commandments, which Jews and Christians believe God handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was removed from office in 2003 for defying a court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building rotunda.

In 1980, the Supreme Court said displaying the commandments in public school classrooms violates the Constitution's First Amendment ban on government ``establishment of religion.''

Van Orden challenged the Texas monument in 2002, and the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monument.

McCreary and Pulaski counties in Kentucky appealed to the Supreme Court after the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the courthouse exhibits unconstitutional in 2003. The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky challenged the exhibits along with four residents of the counties.

Fraternal Order of Eagles

The monument at the Texas Capitol was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961. A federal appeals court ruled it has a valid secular purpose of honoring the Eagles for their work in combating juvenile delinquency.

The monument carries the commandments' text, beginning with, ``I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'' It is among 17 monuments on the Capitol grounds, including one of a pioneer woman and a replica of the Statue of Liberty.

The courthouses in McCreary County and neighboring Pulaski County, Kentucky, included a copy of the commandments among 11 framed documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact and the Magna Carta.

[fire_mat99]

Why does the goverment act religious but they are not !!! And religious goverment chooses and not when he chooses !!!

When the Pope and other religious leaders say no to war but when comes to stem cells and abortion the goverment becomes religious.Yat Bush supports abortion out side the US..

When there torture he looks the other way like he did not see it and still supports the death penalty even when Pope and other religious bodys say no to it.



So many goverments use religious or god has tool when they what to, so they do what ever is in bast intrest in them than don't use when thay should and twist whole thing..


And goverments influence in power ,money and greed.What is the differnets if your religious abortion is a sin so is power,money, greed,war,torture and having poverty in your country having the class struggle in your country ..

[LANMaster]

The 10-C is history both culturally and morally.
It should not be considered offensive to anyone.
It should stay, in fact, it should be displayed in all public buildings right next to the flag.

[angelize56]

For crying out loud...leave all the "Ten Commandments" displays alone and find something better to gripe about....give the Supreme Court a break...they have much more important issues to focus on!

[fire_mat99]

For crying out loud...leave all the "Ten Commandments" displays alone and find something better to gripe about....give the Supreme Court a break...they have much more important issues to focus on!

I thing what LANMaster saying what is the point of having it if no one even the goverment is going do what it says


And in my eye the goverment should be ether religious or NOT you can't twist the religious stuff and pick and choose than it is not religious stuff at all


And power ,money and greed is big sin if your religious or not .And the US goverment is in volitation of that Commandment

[angelize56]

I know what you meant...I just think the Supreme Court has much better things to do with it's time than hear cases like these...the monuments have been around for years and years....just leave them be! That's my opinion!

[linskyjack]

I agree with you Angel--to me its a non-issue, just another smoke screen of the radical right---

[LANMaster]

Geez, Linsky, It's not the right wing bringing this to the court. It's the whacko left.

[linskyjack]

Its the right wing religious nuts who like to display this patently religious image. If they had their way it would be in every public school in the nation.

[bassetman]

Speaking of right wing nuts, heeeeere's Cal!

Cal Thomas



The Supreme Judge and the Supreme Court
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | In the latest culture war battle, the Ten Commandments have reached the Supreme Court.

One federal court has ruled that displaying the 10 standards G-d requires in order to be declared righteous is constitutional because it is part of this country's legal heritage. Another federal court has ordered them removed from public property because their message implies a government endorsement of religion. The justices will decide whether displaying the commandments in government buildings is constitutionally "kosher."


There are some amusing things about this case. First, it is a group of conservative Christians behind the effort. Not many, if any, Jewish groups are petitioning government for this right, even though the Ten Commandments are uniquely Jewish. Moses was Jewish, and the Ten Commandments preceded all of the other laws that followed.


No human has ever obeyed them all. That's why the ancient Israelites had to slaughter so many animals and offer blood and other offerings (grain, fellowship and "wave" among them) and once a year slaughter the Passover lamb to atone for their sin (for younger readers, sin was our condition before we became dysfunctional).

Christians, who sometimes seem so bellicose about these things, believe Jesus fulfilled every one of the Ten Commandments and thus became the perfect "Lamb of G-d who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Christians also believe "a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:16) and "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse" (Galatians 3:10). They believe anyone who wishes to be judged by the law falls short and is condemned.


If Christians believe such things, why would they "settle" for the posting of the Ten Commandments through which they believe no one can be saved? Why not lobby for the display of their favorite verse: "For G-d so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16)? The display of that verse on public property would surely be ruled unconstitutional, but at least Christians would be consistent with what they actually believe.


What puzzles me is the extent to which those who want government to endorse their faith seem ready to compromise their true beliefs in order to receive an honorable mention from the state.


Some seem willing to settle for a moment of silent prayer in government schools, a type of religious Miranda right, in which believing students have the right to remain mute. Others are willing to place their G-d as co-unequal with almost anything, just to have his name publicly mentioned, even if that tends to dilute him so much he wouldn't recognize himself, much less be familiar to others.


Justice Sandra Day O'Connor defended the "under G-d" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance case the court dismissed last year, calling those words "ceremonial deism." She defined the term as the use of religious idiom for "essentially secular purposes," thus satisfying the court's requirement that basically says Rudolph, Santa and Jesus may co-mingle on public property at Christmas (X-mas?) and Rudolph or Santa may be displayed separately or together, but not Jesus alone.


Is this what conservative Christians wish to settle for: a governmental genuflection or acknowledgement that they exist? Do Christians wish to permit government not only to set the parameters for the pubic expression of their faith, but to define the faith itself?


The courts have been wrong for at least half a century in their limitation of religious expression, but the way to win back that right of expression is not mainly through courts, but through hearts.


The first option offers limited power and no guarantee of compliance. The other offers unlimited power and the possibility of changing lives. Which seems better from a biblical standpoint? WWJD (What would Jesus do)? WWMT (What would Moses think)?

[Big-K]

It's not right wing or left wing, its people who simply don't like it. You realize theres also middle ground right? Not being to either side?

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Big-K

It's not right wing or left wing, its people who simply don't like it. You realize theres also middle ground right? Not being to either side?

Yes, I just wish some others did!

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Its the right wing religious nuts who like to display this patently religious image. If they had their way it would be in every public school in the nation.

Sure! What's wrong with displaying the 10 Commandments?

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Sure! What's wrong with displaying the 10 Commandments?

Did you read that Cal Thomas article I posted?

[poochee]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

The 10-C is history both culturally and morally.
It should not be considered offensive to anyone.
It should stay, in fact, it should be displayed in all public buildings right next to the flag.

I agree.

No one is forced to read them, or to believe them.