Supreme Court may tackle Ten Commandments

CNN ^

[Dallas]

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) -- In Alabama and Ohio, courts last week ordered the removal of monuments to the Ten Commandments from a state courthouse and four public schools.

In Texas, a federal court just six weeks earlier ruled the opposite, deciding a monument to the Ten Commandments could stay on state capitol grounds.

[Ciexyz]

Go Judge Moore!

[Dallas]

"Don't Mess With Texas"....LOL

[Ciexyz]

They're not the Ten Suggestions, the Ten Alternatives or even the Ten Principles. They're the Ten Commandments, and they're the moral basis of a healthy society.

[Dog Gone]

It's when the Circuit Courts differ on important questions that the Supreme Court is most likely to step in to settle the matter.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

I read last week that one community may have come up with a fool proof plan.The town council voted to make thier 10 Commandment property private, I assume turn it over to some fraternal group or Vetrans group.Once it is in private hands and not public property that should be the end of the case.

[1_Of_We]

There is NO government ban on ENDORSEMENT of religion. The ban is "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion,".
I see a distinct difference between endorsing and establishing something.

[jla]

They're not the Ten Suggestions, the Ten Alternatives or even the Ten Principles. They're the Ten Commandments, and they're the moral basis of a healthy society

In addition to being in absolute accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

I eagerly await the opinions of Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor & Kennedy.

[Nitro]

They're not the Ten Suggestions, the Ten Alternatives or even the Ten Principles.

They're the Ten Commandments, and they're the moral basis of a healthy society.

Exactly, and yet we can choose to do other things...

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

The ten commandments were settled by the blood of christ NOTHING else is relevant hope he supremes remember that !

[Cold Heat]

I do think that it is past time for the nine to do what they are paid to do. That being, the clarification of the constitution as written and as intended by the Founders.

To make it clear to all concerned that the constitution's religious statements were meant to say "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion", as some opine.

[jla]

Even though Moore's monument contains quotes from historical figures and documents, Thompson's ruling found it to be clearly a religious display, said University of Alabama constitutional law professor Bryan Fair

Carter appointee Thompson is forgetting that even if it is a religious display it is not in violation of the Constitution, as it does not, establish a religion in any way, shape or form.

This matter is nothing but a clear case of the Left, via it's agent provocateur - Myron Thompson, usurping and ignoring the Constitution to further their agenda of creating an atheist society.

[Demidog]

I think what Justice Moore has done is such a flagrant violation of the Constitution

Oh really...which part? Please be specific.

[Lessismore]

The list in the courthouse appeared to be numbered wrong. There was only one "thou shalt covet", and it was number 10.

Hopefully, if the Supreme Court approves of their display, they will also decide whether there are Nine, Ten, or Eleven Commandments, and how they should be numbered.

[Dog Gone]

The ten commandments were settled by the blood of christ NOTHING else is relevant hope he supremes remember that !

A lot of other things are relevant. The Supreme Court must consider other things like the Constitution. That's their job.

[Demidog]

establish a religion

That's not what the constitution forbids. It forbids the passing of legislation which respects the establishment of religion or infringes upon the right of the people to practice their religion. (Congres shall make no law).

And it says no law - which to anyone with basic reading skills means that even a law which views all religions as equal is in violation of the constitution. No law means no law.

Any law which aids, subsidizes, or prohibits the practice of religion is null and void and in violation of the constitution. Of course, displaying the commandments is not a violation unless....unless that display is payed for by taxpayer dollars.

At that point, the display has now respected an establishment of religion and it would have to be in violation since all government spending is subject to congressional appropriations (or state legislative appropriations as the case may be). Clearly in Judge Moore's case, there is no tax money involved. If he starts issuing rulings based upon religion rather than the law he should be spanked. Until then, Morris Dees should crawl back into his hole.

[Reactionary]

There is NO government ban on ENDORSEMENT of religion. The ban is "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion,".

I see a distinct difference between endorsing and establishing something.

Exactly. And this "endorsement" isn't an assertive or proactive endorsement at all; it's merely a silent monument. It's a passive "endorsement," if anything.

[xzins]

1. I think the very strongest argument that can be made is that the monuments do not establish any religion in the sense that was meant when the Constitution was signed. A strict constructionist would see that. The first amendment simply say this nation shall not have a "national church" instituted into law by the congress.

2. The argument of the anti 10 C's judges ONLY makes sense if one interprets "establishment of religion" to mean "divorce all religion and religious culture from public life."

[Dallas]

In case you missed this one.....

Judge Moore Ain't Removing Ten Commandments (FOX NEWS) (781 comments)

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

OK which came first the ten commandments or the constitution ? now dont get me wrong i love the constitution but it was based [ not solely ] on the ten not vise versa my beleifs are that if you can manage to keep the ten the constitution will fall right into place where it belongs !