Free Republic

Is there any room for Moses in an American courthouse? Or must the old lawgiver of Exodus 20 be forever banished into outer darkness? The Supreme Court may give us a hint after it hears argument in two cases presenting the same tough question: Is it constitutionally permissible for an agency of government, such as a public park or a county courthouse, to display the Ten Commandments? On this issue, the lower federal courts are sharply divided. In Van Orden v. Perry, the 5th Circuit said yes, it's OK. In McCreary County v. ACLU, the 6th Circuit said no, it's...

The trouble with the Kentucky display of the Ten Commandments, said the Supreme Court, while approving a similar display in Texas, is that the it was motivated by a "predominantly religious purpose." The trouble with the court's confusing -- some say absurd -- rulings, says Kevin "Seamus" Hasson of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, is that they proceed from an impossible premise. "The 'predominantly religious' test suggests that anything not predominantly secular must be religious. It in fact has strong anti -religious overtones." Hasson, whose organization is devoted to defending the free expression of all religious traditions, believes the...

From his dissent in the Kentucky ten commandments case, McCreary Co. v. ACLU: Assuming the meaning of the Constitution ought to change according to “democratic aspirations,” why are those aspirations to be found in Justices’ notions of what the Establishment Clause ought to mean, rather than in the democratically adopted dispositions of our current society? Numerous provisions of our laws and numerous continuing practices of our people demonstrate that the government’s invocation of God is unobjectionable – including a statute enacted by Congress almost unanimously less that three years ago, stating that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is...

Man in 10 Commandments Case Fears for Safety After Paper Prints Name Published: July 04, 2005 10:30 AM ET OMAHA The man at the center of a challenge to remove a Ten Commandments monument displayed in a public park said he feared for his safety after a newspaper revealed his name Sunday. The Omaha World-Herald in its Sunday editions identified the man, an atheist, who brought the suit against the city of Plattsmouth in 2001 with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. Last September, a federal judge declined a request from the ACLU to stop the paper from...

The Supreme Court wrapped up one of its most disappointing terms in years. Plagued by Chief Justice Rehnquist's absence due to illness, the other justices behaved like the gang that could not shoot straight. The Supreme Court banished the Ten Commandments from courthouses in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, and ruled against private property in Kelo v. City of New London. The term would have been a complete disaster if Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a Clinton-appointee, had not surprisingly voted to save the Ten Commandments displayed on the Texas State Capitol grounds in Van Orden v. Perry. The...

"All told this Court's jurisprudence leaves courts, governments, and believers and nonbelievers alike confused--an observation that is hardly new." With these words Justice Clarence Thomas accurately described the Supreme Court's latest efforts in McCreary County v. ACLU and Van Orden v. Perry to determine whether public displays of the Ten Commandments on state property are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. In McCreary County, the court ruled 5-4 that the display of the Ten Commandments was unconstitutional under the Lemon test because they found a "predominantly religious purpose," i.e., to acknowledge the one true God. In Van Orden, faced with a...

WHITLEY CITY, Ky. - It's one of the more conspicuous road signs on U.S. 27, a scenic route that meanders through the Daniel Boone National Forest on its way to a popular recreational area on Lake Cumberland. "WARNING. Jesus is coming. RU Ready?" Such proclamations, already common throughout the Bible Belt, could proliferate along roadsides in reaction to a Supreme Court ruling barring displays of the Ten Commandments in two southern Kentucky courthouses, said Don Swarthout, head of the Kentucky-based Christians Reviving America's Values. "People want to do something to reflect their principles, and that's one way they can legally...

WASHINGTON D.C.— A constitutional amendment that would protect public expressions of faith and religion was introduced, after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling removed the Ten Commandments from a Kentucky courthouse, reported CNSNews.com. Buoyed by pro-family groups, more than 100 congressmen proposed the Religious Freedom Amendment."Intolerant people have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school, and other religious expression, but this amendment will halt those attacks," said Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) in a statement. The Supreme Court has sent the clear message to public officials that “they will face an onslaught of expensive litigation...

...We need to restore the original definitions of "law," "establishment," and "religion" in the First Amendment. A monument or display could never be a "law," the mere posting or installation of it is not an "establishment," and the recognition of God by the public display of the Ten Commandments is not "religion." After all, the original definition of the word "religion" -- the duties we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging those duties -- which was recognized by the Supreme Court years ago, acknowledged God and a higher law. ...[I]t should be clear that, as Justice Antonin...

When the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against a Ten Commandments display hanging in the breezeway of the courthouse in Winder, Barrow County officials rallied behind the exhibit and vowed to defend it. On Monday, after sifting through two highly anticipated U.S. Supreme Court rulings over displays in Kentucky and Texas, a top Barrow official said it was unclear how the decisions will affect his county's defense. But an ACLU lawyer predicted the rulings will lead to the eventual removal of the display. "Both opinions strengthen our case," ACLU attorney Maggie Garrett said. "There was an obvious religious purpose...

The Supreme Court stepped into one of the most contested fronts of the US culture war on Monday, ruling that the display of framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses crossed the constitutional line between church and state. The five-to-four decision provoked an angry response from Justice Antonin Scalia, who took the unusual step of reading his dissenting opinion from the bench. “Today's opinion ratchets up this court's hostility to religion,” he said, his voice emotional. That ruling, and another on the public display of the commandments, were among the most closely watched of the court's term, which...

So we in Texas get to keep our Ten Commandments monument -- all six feet of it, reposing quietly on the State Capitol grounds -- whereas two Kentucky counties have to remove the Big Ten from their courthouses. And blamed if I can see why, but, then, blamed if anyone this side of the barred windows in the state institution for the mentally incapacitated can ever see what the U.S. Supreme Court means when it defines religious "entanglement" under the First Amendment. Oh, we can read the decisions all right -- two of them this week. We just can't tell...

...In van Orden v. Perry, the Court allowed a six-foot granite monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol. But in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, it decided that a display of framed copies of the Ten Commandments inside two Kentucky courthouses was going too far. ...Reading through the majority opinions, it seems that the difference boils down to such "context" dependent issues as the fact that the granite monument was old -- it had been there since 1961 -- while the Kentucky commandments were of newer vintage and therefore possibly a product of the...

<p>WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday rendered two more hairsplitting, migraine-inducing decisions about when religious displays on public property do and do not violate the First Amendment protection against ``establishment'' of religion. In a case from Texas, where a Ten Commandments monument stands outside the state Capitol, the court, splintered six ways from Sunday, said: We find no constitutional violation. The second case came from Kentucky, where the Commandments displayed in several courthouses are surrounded by historical symbols and documents -- e.g., copies of the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Star Spangled Banner -- to comply with the ``reindeer rule,'' more about which anon. On Monday the court recoiled from Kentucky's displays, saying, they are unconstitutionally motivated by a ``predominately religious purpose.'' Not enough reindeer?</p>

The Ten Commandments: Incremental hair-splitting Tuesday, June 28, 2005 The Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the posting of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses.snip In Texas, however, a 6-foot granite monument at the Statehouse was validated as not being too religious. It is one of 17 historical displays on a large lot. One can read the decisions in whole as being irrational because they announce no firm rules of law. The justices, instead, will take up these matters on a case-by-case basis -- after they convene by asking God to look favorably upon the court. If the justices voting against...

Perhaps nothing illustrates this era of judicial lawlessness better than the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the Ten Commandments, unless they are somehow aesthetically muted and secularized, be chiseled off courthouses across the country. Lawless judges cannot abide the sight of fixed laws adorning courts. Imagine if the representatives of the states at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 had a chance to review David Souter's secularized understanding of the First Amendment before deciding whether or not to ratify the Constitution. Would any of the states have ratified it? Would they have agreed to a constitution that gave federal judges the...

Limits of Religion in Public Life Court acts wisely on Ten Commandments rulings The Monitor's View On the stage on which the American culture clash over religion is playing out, enter the Supreme Court. Monday's twin decisions allowing the display of the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds, but not in Kentucky courtrooms, settle a major contentious issue between political religious conservatives and secular humanists. In this contest, religious conservatives seek to advance a brand of morality in America by actively promoting religious themes and ideas in government. On the other side, secular humanists demand a strict elimination...

Scalia, J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 03—1693 McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETI- TIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, and with whom Justice Kennedy joins as to Parts II and III, dissenting. I would uphold McCreary County and Pulaski County, Kentucky’s (hereinafter Counties) displays of the Ten Commandments. I shall discuss first, why the Court’s oft repeated assertion that the government cannot favor religious practice is...

Court Allows 10 Commandments on Seized Land by Scott Ott (2005-06-27) -- In a pair of rulings on the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments on government property, the Supreme Court today said the commandments may be displayed on public land if that property has been seized from private owners for 'public purposes' under eminent domain. The 5-4 decision comes on the heels of this week's court declaration that so-called "private" property is actually government land temporarily under private management until its eventual seizure. In a second ruling handed down today, the Supreme Court banned the 10 commandments from appearing in...

Don Feder, President of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation, said Americans should be up in arms over the Supreme Court's Ten Commandments decisions. "The Court persists in its tradition of deliberately misinterpreting the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," Feder complained. "An 'establishment of religion' means a national church - not a crèche in a park at Christmas, not a moment of silent meditation at the start of the school day, and not a public display of the Ten Commandments." Feder explained," The Court has put itself in a bind - hence its often wildly inconsistent rulings on so-call separation cases, which are...